The Psychology
of Humor
An Integrative Approach
Rod A. Martin
The "Psychology of Humor:
Jntegmtive Approach
u
ofjJumor:
n Jntegrative
/Ipproach
ROD A. MARTIN
Department of Psychology
University of Western Ontario
London, Ontario, Canada N6A 5C2
ELSEVIER
AMSTERDAM • BOSTON • HEIDELBERG • LONDON
NEW YORK • OXFORD • PARIS • SAN DIEGO
SAN FRANCISCO • SINGAPORE • SYDNEY • TOKYO
Elsevier Academic Press
30 Corporate Drive, Suite 400, Burlington, MA 01803, USA
525 B Street, Suite 1900, San Diego, California 92101-4495, USA
84 Theobald's Road, London WC1X 8RR, UK
This book is printed on acid-free paper, (oo)
Copyright © 2007, Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any
means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording, or any information
storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Permissions may be sought directly from Elsevier's Science & Technology Rights
Department in Oxford, UK: phone: (+44) 1865 843830, fax: (+44) 1865 853333,
E-mail: permissions@elsevier.co.uk. You may also complete your request on-line via
the Elsevier homepage (http://elsevier.com), by selecting "Customer Support" and
then "Obtaining Permissions."
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
APPLICATION SUBMITTED
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
ISBN 13: 978-0-12-372564-6
ISBN 10: 0-12-372564-X
For all information on all Elsevier Academic Press publications
visit our Web site at www.books.elsevier.com
PRINTED IN the United States of America
07 08 09 10 987654321
together to grow
libraries in developing countries
www.elsevier.com I www.bookaid.org I www.sabre.org
Sabre Foundation
To Myra, who keeps me laughing
FOREWORD xiii
PREFACE xv
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS xvii
CHAPTER 1
Introduction to the Psychology of Humor 1
The Universality of Humor and Laughter 2
What Is Humor? 5
The Social Context of Humor 5
Cognitive-Perceptual Processes in Humor 6
Emotional Aspects of Humor 7
Laughter as an Expression of the Emotion of Mirth 9
The Many Forms of Humor 10
Jokes 1 1
Spontaneous Conversational Humor 12
Unintentional Humor 14
Psychological Functions of Humor 1 5
Cognitive and Social Functions of the Positive Emotion of Mirth 1 5
vii
CONTENTS
Social Communication and Influence 17
Tension Relief and Coping with Adversity 1 9
A Brief History of Humor 20
Etymology of Humor 20
Changing Views of Laughter 2 1
Wit versus Humor 2 3
Evolution of the Concept of Sense of Humor 24
Humor and Psychology 26
Conclusion 29
CHAPTER 2
Theories and Early Research I: Psychoanalytic and
Superiority Theories 3 1
Psychoanalytic Theory 3 3
Overview of the Theory 3 3
Empirical Investigations 36
Evaluation 41
Superiority/Disparagement Theories 43
Overview of the Theories 44
Implications of Superiority/Disparagement Theories 47
Empirical Investigations 49
Evaluation 53
CHAPTER 3
Theories and Early Research II: Arousal, Incongruity,
and Reversal Theories 57
Arousal Theories 57
Overview of the Theories 57
Empirical Investigations 59
Evaluation 62
Incongruity Theories 62
Overview of the Theories 62
Empirical Investigations 66
Evaluation 72
Reversal Theory 75
Overview of the Theory 75
Empirical Investigations 79
Evaluation 80
Conclusion 8 1
CONTENTS
CHAPTER 4
The Cognitive Psychology of Humor 83
Humor, Incongruity, and Schemas 85
Schemas, Frames, and Scripts 85
Applications of Schema Theory to Humor 86
Linguistic Approaches to Humor 89
Psychological Approaches to the Study of Schemas in Humor 92
Semantic Distance 92
Semantic Priming Techniques 95
Cognitive Processes in Conversational Humor: Irony and Sarcasm 97
Effects of Humor on Cognition 101
Creativity 101
Memory 103
Computational Approaches to Humor 105
Humor as Cognitive Play 108
Conclusion 110
CHAPTER 5
The Social Psychology of Humor 113
Humor as Social Interaction 114
Interpersonal Functions of Humor 116
Self-Disclosure, Social Probing, and Norm Violation 117
Decommitment 118
Social Norms and Control 119
Status and Hierarchy Maintenance 120
Ingratiation 121
Group Identity and Cohesion 122
Discourse Management 123
Social Play 124
Teasing 124
Social Aspects of Laughter 128
Humor, Social Perception, and Interpersonal Attraction 131
Social Perception 131
Interpersonal Attraction 132
Humor as a Desirable Trait in Friendship and Mate Selection 134
Humor and Persuasion 136
Humor, Attitudes, and Prejudice 139
Humor and Intimate Relationships 143
Humor and Gender 147
Conclusion 150
CONTENTS
CHAPTER 6
The Psychobiology of Humor and Laughter 1 53
The Nature of Laughter 1 54
Laughter and Emotion 155
Acoustics of Laughter 156
Laughter Respiration and Phonation 159
Facial Expressions of Laughter and Smiling 1 60
Autonomic and Visceral Concomitants of Mirth 162
Laughter in Nonhuman Animals 165
The Play Face 165
Laughter and Smiling in Apes 166
"Laughter" in Rats? 168
Pathological Laughter 169
Laughter and the Brain 171
Tickling as a Stimulus for Laughter 173
The Neural Basis of Cognitive Processes in Humor 176
Humor and Brain Injury 176
EEC Studies 179
Brain-Imaging Studies 181
Evolutionary Theories of Humor and Laughter 185
Conclusion 188
CHAPTER 7
Personality Approaches to the Sense of Humor 191
What Is Sense of Humor? 192
Individual Differences in Humor Appreciation 195
Theoretically-based Content Approaches 196
Early Factor Analytic Studies 197
Ruch's Factor- Analytic Investigations 200
Personality Correlates of the 3 WD Dimensions 202
Self-Report Measures of Sense of Humor Dimensions 205
Svebak's Sense of Humor Questionnaire (SHQ) 206
The Situational Humor Response Questionnaire (SHRQ) 208
The Coping Humor Scale (CHS) 210
The Humor Styles Questionnaire (HSQ) 210
The State-Trait Cheerfulness Inventory (STCI) 214
Sense of Humor as an Ability 216
Sense of Humor as Styles of Humorous Conduct 219
How Many Different Senses of Humor Exist? 221
CONTENTS
Personality Characteristics of Professional Humorists 223
Conclusion 225
CHAPTER 8
The Developmental Psychology of Humor 229
Smiling and Laughter in Infancy and Early Childhood 230
Humor and Play 234
Humor and Cognitive Development 238
McGhee's Four-Stage Model of Humor Development 239
The Role of Incongruity and Resolution in Children's Humor 241
Humor and Cognitive Mastery 243
Cognitive Development of Irony and Sarcasm 244
Humor as Emotional Coping 247
Interpersonal Aspects of Humor in Children 249
Social Influences on Humor Appreciation and Laughter 250
Teasing Among Children 250
Individual Differences in Children's Sense of Humor 252
Genetic Factors in Sense of Humor 253
Family Environment Factors in Sense of Humor Development 256
Personality and Behavioral Correlates of Children's Sense of Humor 259
Humor and Aging 263
Conclusion 266
CHAPTER 9
Humor and Mental Health 269
Humor and Emotional Well-Being 270
Experimental Investigations of Humor and Emotions 270
Correlational Studies of Trait Humor and Emotional Well-Being 273
Distinguishing Potentially Healthy and Unhealthy Humor Styles 276
Humor, Stress, and Coping 282
Experimental Investigations of Humor as a Stress Moderator 283
Correlational Studies of Sense of Humor and Coping Styles 285
Humor in Coping with Specific Life Stressors 287
Sense of Humor as a Stress Moderator 291
Process Approaches to Investigating Humor in Coping 295
Interpersonal Aspects of Humor in Mental Health 297
Humor as a Facilitator of Healthy Relationships 299
Interpersonal Aspects of Coping Humor 303
Conclusion 305
CONTENTS
CHAPTER 10
Humor and Physical Health 309
Popular Beliefs About Humor and Health 310
How Might Humor Affect Health? 3 1 3
Humor and Immunity 317
Experimental Investigations 317
Correlational Studies 321
Humor and Pain 323
Humor, Blood Pressure, and Heart Disease 326
Humor and Illness Symptoms 327
Humor and Longevity 329
Conclusion 331
CHAPTER
Applications of Humor in Psychotherapy, Education,
and the Workplace 335
Humor in Psychotherapy and Counseling 336
Humor-Based Therapies 337
Humor as a Specific Therapeutic Technique 339
Humor as a Therapist Skill 341
Research on Humor in the Therapeutic Process 343
Risks of Humor in Therapy 346
Conclusion 349
Humor in Education 349
Descriptive Studies of Teachers' Use of Humor in the Classroom 351
Teachers' Use of Humor and the Classroom Environment 352
Teachers' Use of Humor and Students' Learning 354
Effects of Humor in Tests and Exams 356
Effects of Humor in Textbooks 357
Caveats in the Use of Humor in Education 358
Conclusion 359
Humor in the Workplace 360
Social Functions of Humor in the Workplace 361
Humor as a Reflection of Organizational Culture 365
Humor in Negotiation and Mediation 366
Humor in Leadership 367
Conclusion 368
General Discussion 369
REFERENCES 373
SUBJECT INDEX 421
AUTHOR INDEX 431
u,
Lnderstanding the nature of humor is a
problem for psychology. Humor, comedy, and laughter are important and engaging
aspects of behavior. Consequently, they have received attention from many perspec-
tives and approaches. The amount and diversity of relevant information should have
made this book impossible to write. The material for a work on humor is widely scat-
tered, both in space and time. Even if the focus is on psychology, all the other areas
touching humor need to be examined. Not only empirical research, but rational and
literary thought must be included. Rod Martin has not only brought this material
together but turned it into an easy read. To borrow a simile from James Agee, it must
have been like "putting socks on an octopus."
The Psychology of Humor: An Integrative Approach can stand at the head of a line
of books that have presented a picture of this universal trait. Any philosopher who
wrote on human nature discussed laughter and, at least by implication, humor.
Bergson and Freud at the beginning of the last century focused on laughter and wit
to present testable, if not tested, hypotheses. Psychologists in the middle of the
century included humor as part of their assessments of personality. Chapman and
Foot, and Goldstein and McGhee (as well as McGhee and Goldstein) gave humor
scholars a platform in the 1970s and 1980s. Separate chapters in these various books
permitted presentation of data and ideas, but little interaction or direct communica-
tion. Even now, with a yearly conference and a quarterly journal, disagreement is more
typical than exchange and cooperation. Here, then, with a single voice Martin surveys
xiii
FOREWORD
and integrates a disparate field. After 100 years, we have some answers to the ques-
tions the theories have raised. It is possible to evaluate incongruity/surprise, aggres-
sion/superiority, tension/release, and so on. Their points of overlap and agreement as
well as their conflicts can be examined and a decision advanced as to what predictions
are most accurate.
As the past century has evolved, humor has broadened and increased in scope.
Newspapers, magazines, radio, television, and the Internet supply more accessible —
and to a degree less critical — outlets for humor. One might complain that increased
quantity has led to decreased quality. On the other hand, quantity also leads to more
variability, so the best is better yet! Humor has become a more significant reflection
of society and humanity as a whole. In these pages, the current state of our knowl-
edge is assessed. The direction of future inquiry and understanding can be seen.
Life, it has been said, would be meaningless without art. Perhaps it would be too
meaningful without humor. Here, then, is a thorough description and evaluation of
the good, the bad, and the playful behavior that is a common and significant part of
life.
Peter Derks
Professor Emeritus
College of William and Mary
H
lumor is a ubiquitous human activity that
occurs in all types of social interaction. Most of us laugh at something funny many
times during the course of a typical day. Although it is a form of play, humor serves
a number of "serious" social, cognitive, and emotional functions. Fascinating ques-
tions about humor and laughter touch on every area of psychology. Surprisingly,
however, despite its obvious importance in human behavior, humor and related topics
like laughter, irony, and mirth are hardly ever mentioned in psychology texts and other
scholarly books. Although there is a sizable and continually expanding research liter-
ature on this subject, most psychologists seem to have little systematic knowledge
of it.
The main purpose of this book, then, is to provide an integrative review of theory
and research findings in all areas of the psychology of humor, with one chapter
devoted to each branch of the discipline (cognitive, social, biologic, personality, devel-
opmental, clinical, etc.). The book is designed in part to be used as a textbook for
senior undergraduate- or graduate-level courses in the psychology of humor.
Although such courses are not currently part of the curriculum in most psychology
departments, it is my hope that the availability of this book will encourage instruc-
tors to consider offering one. This course, like the book, would typically be organ-
ized around the different areas of psychology, with a week or two spent on each
chapter. In my experience, this is always a very popular course, and it serves as an
excellent vehicle for demonstrating to students how a very intriguing, enjoyable, and
xv
personally relevant aspect of behavior can be approached from the perspective of each
branch of psychology, providing a comprehensive and compelling understanding of
the topic.
In addition to its purpose as a course textbook, I have also attempted to make this
book useful as a research handbook for students as well as more seasoned academics
who might be interested in conducting their own research in this topic area. In each
chapter, therefore, I point out interesting questions that remain to be answered, novel
hypotheses arising from recent developments in various areas of psychology, and
promising research methods for addressing these questions. Researchers will no doubt
see other ways that concepts from their own field of investigation could be applied to
an understanding of humor. I also include an extensive bibliography for those who
wish to examine the primary sources more closely. It is my hope that this book will
trigger many interesting new ideas and stimulate readers to branch into this research
area.
In addition to students and academic psychologists, I hope this book will be ben-
eficial to scholars from other disciplines who are interested in learning about how
humor has been investigated by psychologists. At various points in the book, I touch
on some of the contributions of several other disciplines, such as anthropology,
biology, computer science, linguistics, and sociology, which augment the research of
psychologists. Finally, this book is also intended for practitioners in health care (e.g.,
physicians, nurses, occupational and physical therapists), counseling, social work, edu-
cation, and business, who may be interested in potential applications of humor in their
respective fields. I therefore do not assume that readers necessarily have a strong back-
ground in psychology. For those who may be less familiar with the discipline, I try to
provide enough information to make the theories, methods, and findings reasonably
accessible. Thus, I am attempting to reach a fairly broad audience with this book. I
ask the reader's indulgence if I seem to be "spreading myself too thin."
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
iis book could not have been written
without the help of many people. My interest in the academic study of humor was
first kindled by my graduate research adviser at the University of Waterloo, Herb Lef-
court, whose intellectual curiosity and enthusiasm for scholarship have provided an
inspiration and role model for me throughout my career. Over the years, I have honed
my thinking about humor in many hours of lively discussion with several colleagues,
including Nick Kuiper at the University of Western Ontario, with whom I have col-
laborated on a number of projects, and my good friends and fellow members of the
International Society for Humor Studies, Peter Derks, Willi Ruch, and Sven Svebak.
I am also grateful to a number of other research collaborators, including Eric Bressler,
Jay Brinker, Lome Campbell, Guohai Chen, Kathy Dance, David Dozois, Paul
Frewen, Shahe Kazarian, Paavo Kerkkanen, Joan Olinger, Tony Vernon, and Lynne
Zarbatany. I have also learned a great deal from my students, whose inquisitiveness
and fresh insights have provided me with ongoing inspiration. Those who have
worked with me on the topic of humor include James Dobbin, Patricia Doris, Gwen
Dutrizac, Jeanette Gray, Tim Hillson, Melissa Johari, Jennie Ward, Kelly Weir, and
Jeremy Yip.
I also wish to thank the following individuals who read drafts of various sections
of this book and provided me with helpful feedback and suggestions: Albert Katz,
Martin Kavaliers, Nick Kuiper, Paul Lewis, Jim Olson, and Willi Ruch. I am espe-
cially indebted to Peter Derks, who read and responded to every chapter, and whose
xvii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
unfailing encouragement and enthusiasm for this project helped keep me going.
Needless to say, however, I take full responsibility for all errors and omissions. I am
also grateful for the support and encouragement of my good friends, Ed Beharry, Ray
Cardey, George Vanderschaaf, and John Zinkann. I am blessed by a warm and caring
family, and am buoyed by the love of my daughters Rachelle (and her husband Andrew
and their children Caroline and Christina) and Julia (and her husband Ben), and my
son Ben. Finally, and most importantly, I cannot fully express my gratitude to my wife,
Myra, whose enduring love and cheerful sense of humor have sustained me, and to
whom I dedicate this book.
CHAPTER 1
We
e all know what it is like to experience
humor. Someone tells a joke, relates an amusing personal anecdote, makes a witty
comment or an inadvertent slip of the tongue, and we are suddenly struck by how
funny it is. Depending on how amusing we perceive the stimulus to be, it might cause
us to smile, to chuckle, or to burst out in peals of convulsive laughter. Our response
is accompanied by pleasant feelings of emotional well-being and mirth. Most of us
have this sort of experience many times during the course of a typical day.
Because humor is so familiar and is such an enjoyable and playful activity, many
people might think they already understand it and do not need research in psychol-
ogy to explain it. However, the empirical study of humor holds many interesting sur-
prises. Although it is essentially a type of mental play involving a lighthearted,
nonserious attitude toward ideas and events, humor serves a number of "serious"
social, emotional, and cognitive functions, making it a fascinating and rewarding topic
of scientific investigation.
The topic of humor raises a host of intriguing questions of relevance to all areas
of psychology. What are the mental processes involved in "getting a joke" or per-
ceiving something to be funny? How is humor processed in the brain, and what effect
does it have on our bodies? What is laughter and why do we laugh in response to
humorous things? Why is humor so enjoyable? What role does humor play in our
interactions with other people? What is a sense of humor and how does it develop in
children? Is a good sense of humor beneficial for mental and physical health?
1 • INTRODUCTION TO THE PSYCHOLOGY OF HUMOR
As is evident from these and other related questions, humor touches on all
branches of academic psychology (R. A. Martin, 2000). Researchers in the area of
cognitive psychology may be interested in the mental processes involved in the per-
ception, comprehension, appreciation, and creation of humor. The interpersonal
functions of humor in dyadic interactions and group dynamics are of relevance to
social psychology. Developmental psychologists may focus on the way humor and
laughter develop from infancy into childhood and throughout the lifespan. Personal-
ity researchers might examine individual differences in sense of humor and their rela-
tion to other traits and behaviors. Biological psychology can shed light on the
physiological bases of laughter and the brain regions underlying the comprehension
and appreciation of humor. The role of humor in mental and physical health, as well
as its potential applications in psychotherapy, education, and the workplace, are of
interest to applied branches of psychology such as clinical, health, educational, and
industrial-organizational psychology. Thus, researchers from every branch of the dis-
cipline have potentially interesting contributions to make to the study of humor.
Indeed, a complete understanding of the psychology of humor requires an integra-
tion of findings from all these areas.
Despite the obvious importance of humor in many different areas of human expe-
rience and its relevance to all branches of psychology, mainstream psychology has paid
surprisingly little attention to this subject up to now. Humor research typically
receives scant mention, if any at all, in undergraduate psychology texts or scholarly
books. Nonetheless, there has been a steady accumulation of research on the topic
over the years, producing a sizable body of knowledge. The overall aim of this
book is therefore to introduce students and academics in psychology, as well as
scholars and professional practitioners from other fields, to the existing research lit-
erature, and to point out interesting avenues for farther study in this fascinating topic
area.
In this chapter, I will begin by summarizing evidence of the universality and evo-
lutionary origins of humor and laughter in humans. I will then explore the question
of what humor is, discussing four essential elements of the humor process and the rel-
evance of each to an integrative psychology of humor. This will be followed by a
survey of the many different forms of humor that we encounter during our daily lives,
and an examination of the psychological functions of humor and laughter. Next, I will
summarize the history of the concept of humor, examining the way popular concep-
tions and assumptions about humor and laughter have changed dramatically over the
centuries. Finally, I will discuss the psychological approach to humor and then present
an overview of the rest of this book.
THE UNIVERSALITY OF HUMOR AND LAUGHTER
Humor and laughter are a universal aspect of human experience, occurring in all
cultures and virtually all individuals throughout the world (Apte, 1985; Lefcourt,
2001). Laughter is a distinctive, stereotyped pattern of vocalization that is easily rec-
THE UNIVERSALITY OF HUMOR AND LAUGHTER
ognized and quite unmistakable (Provine and Yong, 1991). Although different cul-
tures have their own norms concerning the suitable subject matter of humor and the
types of situations in which laughter is considered appropriate, the sounds of laugh-
ter are indistinguishable from one culture to another. Developmentally, laughter is
one of the first social vocalizations (after crying) emitted by human infants (McGhee,
1979). Infants begin to laugh in response to the actions of other people at about four
months of age, and cases of gelastic (i.e., laughter-producing) epilepsy in newborns
indicate that the brain mechanisms for laughter are already present at birth (Sher and
Brown, 1976). The innateness of laughter is further demonstrated by the fact that
even children born deaf and blind have been reported to laugh appropriately without
ever having perceived the laughter of others (Provine, 2000). Indeed, there is evidence
of specialized brain circuits for humor and laughter in humans, which researchers are
beginning to identify by means of neural imaging studies. Thus, being able to enjoy
humor and express it through laughter seems to be an essential part of what it means
to be human.
Interestingly, though, humans are not the only animal that laughs. Primatologists
have studied in some detail a form of laughter emitted by young chimpanzees, which
was first described by Charles Darwin (1872). Similar types of laughter have also been
observed in other apes, including bonobos, orangutans, and gorillas (Preuschoft and
van Hooff, 1997; van Hooff and Preuschoft, 2003). Ape laughter is described as a stac-
cato, throaty, panting vocalization that accompanies the relaxed open-mouth or "play
face," and is emitted during playful rough-and-tumble social activities such as
wrestling, tickling, and chasing games (see Figure 1). Although it sounds somewhat
different from human laughter, it is quite recognizable as such, occurring in similar
social contexts as laughter in human infants and young children. Indeed, there is good
reason to believe that human and chimpanzee laughter have the same evolutionary
origins and many of the same functions.
In addition to laughter, there is evidence that apes may even have the capacity for
a rudimentary sense of humor. Chimpanzees and gorillas that have been taught to
communicate by means of sign language have been observed to use language in playful
ways that are very reminiscent of humor, such as punning, humorous insults, and
incongruous word use (Gamble, 2001). Interestingly, these humorous uses of linguis-
tic signs are sometimes also accompanied by laughter and the play face, indicating a
close link between humor, play, and laughter even in apes.
All of these lines of evidence suggest that humor and laughter in humans are a
product of natural selection (Gervais and Wilson, 2005). Laughter appears to have
originated in social play and to be derived from primate play signals. It is viewed by
evolutionary researchers as part of the nonverbal "gesture-call" system, which has a
long evolutionary history, predating the development of language (Burling, 1993).
With the evolution of greater intellectual and linguistic abilities, humans have adapted
the laughter-generating play activities of their primate ancestors to the mental play
with words and ideas that we now call humor (Caron, 2002). Thus, although they
usually do not chase and tickle one another in rough-and-tumble play, human adults,
by means of humor, continue to engage in frequent social play. These evolutionary
INTRODUCTION TO THE PSYCHOLOGY OF HUMOR
FIGURE 1 The chimpanzee play face. The characteristic "play face" (open mouth, upper
teeth covered, lower teeth exposed) accompanies panting laughter. © Getty Images/PhotoDisc
origins of humor and laughter suggest that they likely have important social-
emotional functions that have contributed to our survival as a species.
Although humor has a biological basis rooted in our genes, it is also evident that
cultural norms and learning play an important role in determining how it is used in
social interactions, and what topics are considered appropriate for it. In addition,
although all forms of humor seem to originate in a basic play structure, the complexity
of human language and imagination enables us to create humor in a seemingly endless
variety of forms. As human language, culture, and technology have evolved, we have
developed new methods and styles of communicating it, from spontaneous interper-
sonal joking and banter to oral storytelling traditions, comedic drama and humorous
literature, comedy films, radio and television shows, and jokes and cartoons dissemi-
nated over the Internet.
Besides being a form of playful fun and entertainment, humor has taken on a wide
range of social functions over the course of human biological and cultural evolution.
Many of these interpersonal functions are contradictory and paradoxical. Humor can
WHAT IS HUMOR?
be a method of enhancing social cohesion within an in-group, but it can also be a way
of excluding individuals from an out-group. It can be a means of reducing but also
reinforcing status differences among people, expressing agreement and sociability but
also disagreement and aggression, facilitating cooperation as well as resistance, and
strengthening solidarity and connectedness or undermining power and status. Thus,
while originating in social play, humor has evolved in humans as a universal mode of
communication and social influence with a variety of functions.
WHAT IS HUMOR?
The Oxford English Dictionary defines humor as "that quality of action, speech, or
writing which excites amusement; oddity, jocularity, facetiousness, comicality, fun." It
goes on to say that humor is also "the faculty of perceiving what is ludicrous or
amusing, or of expressing it in speech, writing, or other composition; jocose imagi-
nation or treatment of a subject" (Simpson and Weiner, 1989, p. 486). It is evident
from these definitions that humor is a broad term that refers to anything that people
say or do that is perceived as funny and tends to make others laugh, as well as the
mental processes that go into both creating and perceiving such an amusing stimu-
lus, and also the affective response involved in the enjoyment of it.
From a psychological perspective, the humor process can be divided into four
essential components: (1) a social context, (2) a cognitive-perceptual process, (3) an
emotional response, and (4) the vocal-behavioral expression of laughter.
The Social Context of Humor
Humor is fundamentally a social phenomenon. We laugh and joke much more
frequently when we are with other people than when we are by ourselves (R. A. Martin
and Kuiper, 1999; Provine and Fischer, 1989). People do occasionally laugh when they
are alone, such as while watching a comedy show on television, reading a humorous
book, or remembering a funny personal experience. However, these instances of
laughter can usually be seen as "pseudo-social" in nature, because one is still respond-
ing to the characters in the television program or the author of the book, or reliving
in memory an event that involved other people.
Humor can (and frequently does) occur in virtually any social situation. It can
occur between spouses who have lived together for fifty years or between strangers
waiting at a bus stop. It can take place in the conversation of a group of close friends
casually sitting around a table in a coffee shop, or in the interactions of a group of
business people participating in formal negotiations. It can be used by public speak-
ers, such as politicians or religious leaders, addressing large audiences either in person
or via the media.
The social context of humor is one of play. Indeed, humor is essentially a way for
people to interact in a playful manner. As I have already noted, research on laughter
in chimpanzees and other apes indicates that laughter originates in social play (van
1 • INTRODUCTION TO THE PSYCHOLOGY OF HUMOR
Hooff and Preuschoft, 2003). In humans, our ability to create humor to amuse one
another and evoke laughter appears to have evolved as a means of providing us with
extended opportunities for play. Play seems to serve important social, emotional, and
cognitive functions (Bateson, 2005). Indeed, all mammals engage in play as juveniles,
but, unlike most other animals, humans continue to play throughout their lives, most
notably through humor.
When they engage in play, people take a nonserious attitude toward the things
they are saying or doing, and they carry out these activities for their own sake —
for the fun of it — rather than having a more important goal in mind. Psychologist
Michael Apter (1991) has referred to the playful state of mind associated with humor
as the paratelic mode, which he distinguishes from the more serious, goal-directed telic
mode (from Greek telos = goal). According to Apter, we switch back and forth between
these serious and playful states of mind many times during the course of a typical day.
The humorous, playful mode of functioning can occur for brief moments or for
extended periods of time. In a business meeting, for example, someone may make a
humorous quip that causes the group to laugh and enter the playful paratelic frame
of mind for a brief moment, before resuming their more serious telic mode of dis-
course. In more casual settings, when people are feeling relaxed and uninhibited, they
may engage in playful and humorous storytelling and joke swapping for several hours
at a time.
Cognitive-Perceptual Processes in Humor
Besides occurring in a social context, humor is characterized by particular sorts
of cognitions. To produce humor, an individual needs to mentally process informa-
tion coming from the environment or from memory, playing with ideas, words, or
actions in a creative way, and thereby generating a witty verbal utterance or a comical
nonverbal action that is perceived by others to be funny. In the reception of humor,
we take in information (something someone says or does, or something we read)
through our eyes and ears, process the meaning of this information, and appraise it
as nonserious, playful, and humorous.
What are the characteristics of a stimulus that cause us to perceive it to be funny?
As we will see in the next two chapters, this question has been a topic of much schol-
arly debate and research for centuries (see also Roeckelein, 2002). Most investigators
would agree, however, that humor involves an idea, image, text, or event that is in
some sense incongruous, odd, unusual, unexpected, surprising, or out of the ordinary.
In addition, there needs to be some aspect that causes us to appraise the stimulus as
nonserious or unimportant, putting us into a playful frame of mind at least momen-
tarily. Thus, the essence of humor seems to be incongruity, unexpectedness, and play-
fulness, which evolutionary theorists Matthew Gervais and David Wilson (2005)
referred to as "nonserious social incongruity." This constellation of cognitive elements
appears to characterize all forms of humor, including jokes, teasing, and witty banter,
unintentional types of humor such as amusing slips of the tongue or the proverbial
person slipping on the banana peel, the laughter-eliciting peek-a-boo games and
WHAT IS HUMOR?
rough-and-tumble play of children, and even the humor of chimpanzees and gorillas
(Wyer and Collins, 1992).
Arthur Koestler (1964) coined the term bisodation to refer to the mental process
involved in perceiving humorous incongruity. According to Koestler, bisociation
occurs when a situation, event, or idea is simultaneously perceived from the perspec-
tive of two self-consistent but normally unrelated and even incompatible frames of
reference. Thus, a single event "is made to vibrate simultaneously on two different
wavelengths, as it were" (p. 35). A simple example is a pun, in which two different
meanings of a word or phrase are brought together simultaneously (e.g., Two canni-
bals are eating a clown. One says to the other, "Does this taste funny to you?").
According to Koestler, this same process underlies all types of humor.
Michael Apter (1982) used the concept of synergy to describe this cognitive
process, in which two contradictory images or conceptions of the same object are held
in one's mind at the same time. In the playful paratelic state, according to Apter, syn-
ergies are enjoyable and emotionally arousing, producing the pleasurable sensation of
having one's thoughts oscillate back and forth between two incompatible interpreta-
tions of a concept. Thus, in humor, we playfully manipulate ideas and activities so
that they are simultaneously perceived in opposite ways, such as real and not real,
important and trivial, threatening and safe. As we will see in later chapters, a great
deal of theoretical discussion and research in the psychology of humor has focused
on exploring in greater detail the cognitive processes underlying the perception and
appreciation of humor.
Emotional Aspects of Humor
Our response to humor is not just an intellectual one. The perception of humor
invariably also evokes a pleasant emotional response, at least to some degree. Psy-
chological studies have shown that exposure to humorous stimuli produces an increase
in positive affect and mood (Szabo, 2003). The emotional nature of humor is also
clearly demonstrated by recent brain imaging research showing that exposure to
humorous cartoons activates the well-known reward network in the limbic system of
the brain (Mobbs et al., 2003). The funnier a particular cartoon is rated by a partic-
ipant, the more strongly these parts of the brain are activated. From other research,
we know that these same brain circuits underlie pleasurable emotional states associ-
ated with a variety of enjoyable activities including eating, listening to enjoyable
music, sexual activity, and even ingestion of mood-altering drugs. This explains why
humor is so enjoyable and why people go to such lengths to experience it as often as
they can: whenever we laugh at something funny, we are experiencing an emotional
high that is rooted in the biochemistry of our brains.
It can therefore be argued that humor is essentially an emotion that is elicited by
the particular types of cognitive processes discussed in the previous section. Just as
other emotions like joy, jealousy, or fear occur in response to specific types of
appraisals of the social and physical environment (Lazarus, 1991), so humor comprises
an emotional response that is elicited by a particular set of appraisals, namely the
1 • INTRODUCTION TO THE PSYCHOLOGY OF HUMOR
perception that an event or situation is incongruously funny or amusing. The pleas-
ant emotion associated with humor, which is familiar to all of us, is a unique feeling
of well-being that is described by such terms as amusement, mirth, hilarity, cheerfulness,
and merriment. It is closely related to joy, and contains an element of exultation and
a feeling of invincibility, a sense of expansion of the self that the seventeenth-century
English philosopher Thomas Hobbes referred to as "sudden glory."
Surprisingly, although it is a feeling that is familiar to everyone, scholars have not
yet settled on an agreed-upon technical term to denote this particular emotion.
Researchers have specific terms to denote emotions like joy, love, fear, anxiety, depres-
sion, and so forth, but there is no common name for the emotion elicited by humor.
This is because it is so closely aligned with laughter that, until recently, theorists and
researchers have tended to focus on the more obvious behavior of laughter instead of
the emotion that underlies it. Some researchers have used the expressions "humor
appreciation" (e.g., Weisfeld, 1993) or "amusement" (e.g., Shiota et al., 2004) to
denote this emotion, but these terms seem to be too cognitive and do not fully capture
its emotional nature. Psychologist Willibald Ruch (1993) has proposed the word exhil-
aration (related to hilarity, from Latin hilaris = cheerful) as a technical term for this
emotion. While exhilaration, in its common English meaning, contains a sense of
excitement in addition to cheerfulness, Ruch suggested that this use of the term would
de-emphasize the excitement component, underscoring instead the emotional quality
of cheerfulness, amusement, and funniness. However, this term does not seem to have
caught on with researchers, who likely have difficulty shedding the connotation of
excitement.
To denote this emotion, we need a term that is clearly emotion-related and is
associated with humor and laughter but without being synonymous with either one,
and which can have a range of intensities. In my view, the word mirth works very well
for this purpose. The Oxford English Dictionary defines mirth as "pleasurable feeling,
. . . joy, happiness; gaiety of mind, as manifested in jest and laughter; merriment, hilar-
ity" (Simpson and Weiner, 1989, p. 841). This seems to be exactly the required
meaning. Some researchers have used the word mirth to refer to smiling and laugh-
ter, which are facial and vocal expressions of the emotion rather than the emotion
itself, and therefore should be kept distinct. In this book, then, I will refer to this
emotion as mirth.
Mirth, then, is the distinctive emotion that is elicited by the perception of humor.
Like other emotions (e.g., joy, love, sadness, fear), mirth can occur with varying
degrees of intensity, ranging from mild feelings of amusement to very high levels of
hilarity (Ruch, 1993). Also like other emotions, mirth has physiological as well as expe-
riential components. Along with the distinctive subjective feelings of pleasure, amuse-
ment, and cheerfulness, this emotion is accompanied by a range of biochemical
changes in the brain, autonomic nervous system, and endocrine system, involving a
variety of molecules, including neurotransmitters, hormones, opioids, and neuropep-
tides (Panksepp, 1993). This neurochemical cocktail has further effects on many parts
of the body, including the cardiovascular, muskuloskeletal, digestive, and immune
systems (W. F. Fry, 1994). The biological concomitants of the emotion of mirth form
WHAT IS HUMOR?
the basis of claims that have been made in recent years about potential health bene-
fits of humor and laughter. However, the exact nature of the physiological changes
accompanying mirth is not yet well understood, and further research is needed before
we can say with confidence whether these effects have significant health benefits
(R. A. Martin, 2001,2002).
The essentially emotional nature of humor is something that many scholars have
failed to recognize until quite recently. In the past, most theorists and researchers have
viewed it as primarily a cognitive process rather than an emotional one. A great deal
of philosophical debate and research effort has been expended on attempts to iden-
tify the precise cognitive-perceptual elements that are necessary and sufficient for
humor to occur, with little recognition of the fact that what these cognitive appraisals
elicit is an emotion. This would be like researchers who study depression or anxiety
spending all their time debating about the specific types of events and cognitive
appraisals that elicit these mood states without ever noticing their emotional nature.
Although much has been learned about the cognitive aspects of humor (and there is
still more work to do in this area), theory and research directed at the emotional com-
ponent of humor has only recently begun. Recent research efforts bridging social and
biological psychology hold particular promise for further exciting breakthroughs in
this area.
Laughter as an Expression of the Emotion of Mirth
Like other emotions, the mirthful pleasure accompanying humor also has an
expressive component, namely laughter and smiling. At low levels of intensity, this
emotion is expressed by a faint smile, which turns into a broader grin and then audible
chuckling and laughter as the emotional intensity increases. At very high intensities,
it is expressed by loud guffaws, often accompanied by a reddening of the face as well
as bodily movements such as throwing back the head, rocking the body, slapping one's
thighs, and so on. Thus, laughter is essentially a way of expressing or communicat-
ing to others the fact that one is experiencing the emotion of mirth, just as frowning,
scowling, yelling, and clenching one's fists communicate the emotion of anger. Laugh-
ter is therefore fundamentally a social behavior: if there were no other people to com-
municate to, we would not need laughter. This is no doubt why it is so loud, why it
comprises such a distinctive and easily recognized set of sounds, and why it rarely
occurs in social isolation.
As we have already seen, the laughter of chimpanzees and other apes is typically
accompanied by a characteristic facial expression called the relaxed open-mouth
display, or play face, which is also seen in other primates and is shown during play.
Many theorists have suggested that the main function of laughter, in humans as well
as apes, is to signal to others that one is engaging in play, rather than being serious
(e.g., van Hooff, 1972). When chimpanzees are playfully fighting and chasing each
other, it is important for them to be able to let each other know that they are just
having fun and not seriously intending to harm one another. In humans also, laugh-
ter can be a signal of friendliness and playful intentions, indicating that one is in a
1 • INTRODUCTION TO THE PSYCHOLOGY OF HUMOR
nonserious frame of mind. The laughter accompanying friendly teasing, for example,
signals that a seemingly insulting message is not to be taken seriously.
More recently, researchers have suggested that the purpose of laughter is not just
to communicate that one is in a playful state, but to actually induce this state in others
as well (Owren and Bachorowski, 2003; Russell, Bachorowski, and Fernandez-Dols,
2003). According to this view, the peculiar sounds of laughter have a direct effect on
the listener, inducing positive emotional arousal that mirrors the emotional state of
the laugher, perhaps by activating certain specialized brain circuits (Gervais and
Wilson, 2005; Provine, 2000). In this way, laughter may serve an important biosocial
function of coupling together the positive emotions of members of a group and
thereby coordinating their activities. This would explain why laughter is so conta-
gious; when we hear someone laughing, it is almost impossible not to feel mirthful
and begin laughing too. Yet another potential social function of laughter is to moti-
vate others to behave in particular ways (Shiota et al., 2004). For example, laughter
can be a method of positively reinforcing others for desirable behavior ("laughing
with"), as well as a potent form of punishment directed at undesirable behaviors
("laughing at").
In summary, the psychological process of humor involves a social context, a
cognitive appraisal process comprising the perception of playful incongruity, the emo-
tional response of mirth, and the vocal-behavioral expression of laughter. Neurolog-
ical studies indicate that these different components of the humor process involve
different but interconnected regions of the brain (Wild et al., 2003). The word humor
is often used in a narrow sense to refer specifically to the cognitive-perceptual com-
ponent, the mental processes that go into creating or perceiving something funny or
amusing. I will also occasionally use it in this narrow sense, since there does not seem
to be another word to denote this cognitive process. It is important to bear in mind,
though, that in a broader sense, humor refers to all four components, and all of them
need to be addressed in an integrative psychology of humor.
THE MANY FORMS OF HUMOR
We have seen that humor is essentially an emotional response of mirth in a social
context that is elicited by a perception of playful incongruity and is expressed through
smiling and laughter. Although these basic elements are common to all instances of
humor, the range of social situations and events that can elicit the humor response is
remarkably diverse. During the course of a typical day, we encounter many different
forms of humor communicated by different means and for different purposes. Some
of this humor comes to us via the mass media. Radio hosts frequently crack jokes and
make witty comments; television provides us with a constant diet of humor in the
form of sitcoms, blooper shows, stand-up comedy, political satire, and humorous
advertisements; and we encounter it also in newspaper comic strips and cartoons,
comedy movies, and humorous books. Humor is also often used in speeches, sermons,
and lectures by politicians, religious leaders, motivational speakers, and teachers.
THE MANY FORMS OF HUMOR
However, most of the humor and laughter that we experience in our daily lives
arises spontaneously in the course of our normal relations with other people (R. A.
Martin and Kuiper, 1999). This sort of interpersonal humor occurs in nearly every
type of informal and formal interaction, including conversations between lovers, close
friends, fellow students, coworkers, business associates, store clerks and customers,
doctors and patients, teachers and students, and even complete strangers standing in
line at a bank.
Individuals vary in the degree to which they produce humor in their daily inter-
actions with others. Most of us enjoy the positive emotion of mirth so much that we
highly value those individuals who are especially good at making us laugh. These are
the people that we often describe as having a "good sense of humor," and they tend
to be particularly sought out as friends and romantic partners. Some people develop
such a talent at eliciting mirth in others and making them laugh that they become
professional humor producers, entering the ranks of humorous authors, cartoonists,
stand-up comedians, comedy writers, and actors. The billions of dollars spent on
various forms of comedy each year further attest to the high value placed on the emo-
tional pleasure associated with humor.
The humor that occurs in our everyday social interactions can be divided into
three broad categories: (1) jokes, which are prepackaged humorous anecdotes
that people memorize and pass on to one another; (2) spontaneous conversational
humor, which is created intentionally by individuals during the course of a social inter-
action, and can be either verbal or nonverbal; and (3) accidental or unintentional
humor.
Jokes
During the course of normal conversations, some people like to amuse others by
telling jokes, which are short, amusing stories ending in a punch line. These are some-
times also referred to as "canned jokes" to distinguish them from the sorts of infor-
mal jesting and witty quips to which the words joke and joking can also refer. Here is
an example of a joke of this sort (from Long and Graesser, 1988, p. 49):
A man goes to a psychiatrist who gives him a battery of tests. Then he announces his findings. "I'm
sorry to have to tell you that you are hopelessly insane." "Hell," says the client, indignantly, "I want
a second opinion." "Okay," says the doctor, "You're ugly too."
The joke consists of a setup and a punch line. The setup, which includes all but
the last sentence, creates in the listener a particular set of expectations about how the
situation should be interpreted. The punch line suddenly shifts the meaning in an
unexpected and playful way, thus creating the perception of nonserious incongruity
that is necessary for humor to occur. In this particular joke, the punch line plays on
the meaning of the phrase "second opinion," shifting the frame of reference from that
of a serious, professional doctor-patient relationship to a nonsensical one in which
one person is insulting another. The story is clearly playful and nonserious, convey-
ing that the whole thing is meant to be taken as fun. Note, however, that there is also
1 • INTRODUCTION TO THE PSYCHOLOGY OF HUMOR
an aggressive element in this joke ("You're ugly too"). As we will see, there is much
debate about the degree to which aggression is an essential aspect of all jokes (and
perhaps even all humor).
In everyday conversation, joke-telling is usually prefaced by verbal or nonverbal
cues (e.g., "Did you hear the one about . . .") or conforms to certain stock formats
(e.g., "A man went into a bar . . .") that indicate to the audience that the story is meant
to be humorous and that the listeners are expected to laugh (Cashion, Cody, and
Erickson, 1986). Although joke-tellers typically try to draw links between the jokes
they tell and the ongoing topic of conversation, a joke is a context-free and self-
contained unit of humor that carries within itself all the information needed for it to
be understood and enjoyed. It can therefore be told in many different conversational
contexts (Long and Graesser, 1988). Riddles are another form of prepackaged humor
closely related to jokes, which often involve a play on words and are particularly
enjoyed by young children (e.g., Why did the cookie cry? Because his mother was a
wafer so long).
Spontaneous Conversational Humor
Canned jokes represent only a small proportion of the humor that we experience
in our everyday social interactions. In a daily diary study in which we had adults keep
a record of every time they laughed over the course of three days, my colleague
Nicholas Kuiper and I found that only about 1 1 percent of daily laughter occurred in
response to jokes. Another 17 percent was elicited by the media, and fully 72 percent
arose spontaneously during social interactions, either in response to funny comments
that people made or to amusing anecdotes they told about things that had happened
to them (R. A. Martin and Kuiper, 1999). This sort of spontaneous conversational
humor is more context-dependent than joke-telling, and is therefore often not as
funny when recounted afterwards ("You had to be there"). In such conversational
humor, nonverbal cues indicating a humorous intent, such as a twinkle in the eye or
a particular tone of voice, are often more ambiguous than in joke-telling, so that the
listener is often not entirely sure if the speaker is jesting or being serious.
Spontaneous conversational humor takes many different forms, and many differ-
ent words exist to describe them (e.g., jest, witticism, quip, wisecrack, gag). Neal Norrick
(2003), a linguist who has conducted research on humor occurring in everyday con-
versation, suggested that, besides the telling of canned jokes, conversational humor
may be classified into (1) anecdotes (relating an amusing story about oneself or someone
else); (2) wordplay (creating puns, witty responses, or wisecracks that play on the
meaning of words); and (3) irony (a statement in which the literal meaning is differ-
ent from the intended meaning).
A more extensive classification system of spontaneous conversational humor
(which they referred to as wit), was developed by psychologists Debra Long and
Arthur Graesser (1988). To obtain a broad sample of the types of humor occurring in
naturalistic conversations, these authors recorded a number of episodes of television
talk shows (e.g., The Tonight Show) and then analyzed the different types of humor
THE MANY FORMS OF HUMOR
that arose in the interactions between the hosts and their guests. Audience laughter
was used as an indicator of humor. Based on their analyses, these authors identified
the following 1 1 categories, which were distinguished from one another on the basis
of their intentions or uses of humor:
1 . Irony — the speaker expresses a statement in which the literal meaning is opposite
to the intended meaning (e.g., saying "What a beautiful day!" when the weather
is cold and stormy).
2. Satire — aggressive humor that pokes fun at social institutions or social policy.
3. Sarcasm — aggressive humor that targets an individual rather than an institution
(e.g., At a fashionable dinner, a dignified lady rebuked Winston Churchill: "Sir,
you are drunk." "Yes," replied Churchill, "and you are ugly. But tomorrow I shall
be sober and you shall still be ugly").
4. Overstatement and understatement — changing the meaning of something another
person has said by repeating it with a different emphasis (e.g., A guest asks host
Johnny Carson, who had been married several times: "Have you ever been
married?" A second guest says, "Has he ever been married!").
5. Self-deprecation — humorous remarks targeting oneself as the object of humor. This
may be done to demonstrate modesty, to put the listener at ease, or to ingratiate
oneself with the listener.
6. Teasing — humorous remarks directed at the listener's personal appearance or
foibles. Unlike sarcasm, the intention is not to seriously insult or offend.
7. Replies to rhetorical questions — because rhetorical questions are not asked with the
expectation of a reply, giving an answer to one violates a conversational expecta-
tion and surprises the person who posed the question. This can therefore be per-
ceived as funny, and the intention is usually to simply entertain a conversational
partner.
8. Clever replies to serious statements — clever, incongruous, or nonsensical replies to a
statement or question that was meant to be serious. The statement is deliberately
misconstrued so that the speaker replies to a meaning other than the intended
one.
9. Double entendres — a statement or word is deliberately misperceived or miscon-
strued so as to evoke a dual meaning, which is often sexual in nature.
10. Transformations of frozen expressions — transforming well-known sayings, cliches, or
adages into novel statements (e.g., complaint of a bald man: "Hair today, gone
tomorrow").
1 1 . Puns — humorous use of a word that evokes a second meaning, usually based on
a homophone (i.e., a word with a different meaning that sounds the same).
Although these categories are not mutually exclusive and there may be other
forms of spontaneous wit that occur in natural conversation but are not observed in
television talk shows (Wyer and Collins, 1992), this list does provide a useful starting
point for thinking about the many different ways humor may be expressed. Neal
Norrick (1984) also discussed what he called stock conversational witticisms, which
are humorous sayings or expressions that are routinely and recurrently used in
1 • INTRODUCTION TO THE PSYCHOLOGY OF HUMOR
conversation (e.g., "faster than greased lightning," or "bring that up again and we'll
vote on it" in response to someone belching). Besides these verbal forms of humor,
people also often intentionally create humor in social interactions by nonverbal
means, such as funny or exaggerated facial expressions, odd ways of walking, bodily
gestures, or mannerisms.
Unintentional Humor
In addition to the things people say and do during social interactions with the
intention of amusing others, much mirth and laughter also arise from utterances or
actions that are not meant to be fanny (Wyer and Collins, 1992). English literature
professors Alleen Nilsen and Don Nilsen (2000) referred to these as accidental humor,
which they divided into physical and linguistic forms. Accidental physical humor
includes minor mishaps and pratfalls such as the person slipping on a banana peel or
spilling a drink on one's shirt. These sorts of events are funny when they occur in a
surprising and incongruous manner and when the person experiencing them is not
seriously hurt or badly embarrassed. This type of humor also forms the basis of slap-
stick and screwball comedy.
Accidental linguistic humor arises from misspellings, mispronunciations, errors
in logic, and the kinds of speaker confusions called Freudian slips, malapropisms, and
spoonerisms. This type of unintentional humor occurs, for example, in newspaper
headlines in which an ambiguity creates a humorous alternative meaning (e.g., "Pros-
titutes appeal to pope"; "Dr. Ruth talks about sex with newspaper editors"; "Red tape
holds up bridge"). Spoonerisms are a speech error in which the initial sounds of two
or more words are transposed, creating an unintended and humorous new meaning.
They were named after a nineteenth-century British clergyman named William
Spooner who frequently made such mistakes in his sermons and speeches (e.g., he is
said to have proposed a toast to Queen Victoria, saying "Three cheers for our queer
old dean").
In sum, humor is a ubiquitous type of social interaction that takes many differ-
ent forms. The conversational types of humor, including joke-telling, spontaneous
wit, and unintentional humor, are of particular interest to psychologists. However,
until quite recently, most of the psychological research on humor has focused largely
on jokes and cartoons (which are essentially visual jokes), and has generally ignored
the other types. This is in large part because of the self-contained and context-free
nature of jokes and cartoons, which makes them very easy to transport into a labora-
tory setting. Over the years, a great many studies have been conducted in which par-
ticipants (usually sitting by themselves in a laboratory) were presented with various
types of jokes and cartoons under a variety of experimental conditions and were asked
to rate them for funniness. Thus, in humor research, jokes and cartoons have long
served as the equivalent of T-mazes or nonsense syllables in other fields, providing
experimenters with an independent variable that can help control the input in inves-
tigations of this rather nebulous concept.
PSYCHOLOGICAL FUNCTIONS OF HUMOR
However, humor in these sorts of studies is removed from its natural social
context, and, although these methods have enabled researchers to make many inter-
esting discoveries, they are not as useful for studying the forms and functions of humor
as it normally occurs in social interaction. In contrast to studying participants'
responses to jokes in a laboratory, it is more difficult to investigate the spontaneous
forms of humor that arise in everyday conversations and depend on the social context.
For this type of research, investigators may need to go out of the laboratory and study
humor as it occurs spontaneously in naturalistic settings, or at least have dyads or
groups of people interact with one another in the laboratory.
Besides being the focus of most research, jokes have also served as the prototype
of humor in many past theories, which have tended to focus particularly on the cog-
nitive processes underlying the comprehension of these types of humor. Because joke
comprehension may be somewhat different from the cognitive processes involved in
other forms of humor, these theories were often inadequate for explaining all types
of humor. More recently, researchers are beginning to develop theories that account
for other sorts of humor occurring in social interaction besides jokes (e.g., Wyer and
Collins, 1992). These theories often incorporate the emotional and social aspects of
humor as well as the cognitive elements.
PSYCHOLOGICAL FUNCTIONS OF HUMOR
Although it is essentially a form of social play enabling us to have fun and derive
emotional pleasure from nonserious incongruities, humor serves a number of impor-
tant and "serious" psychological functions, which have likely contributed to our sur-
vival as a species. Some of the benefits of humor derive from the positive emotion
associated with it, and many of these were likely already present in the laughter-
evoking rough-and-tumble play activities ("proto-humor") of our early hominid
ancestors even before the evolution of language. Other functions seem to have been
added on over the course of human evolution through a process known as co-optation
(Gervais and Wilson, 2005). As humans developed greater cognitive and linguistic
abilities, complex patterns of group interaction, and the ability to infer the intentions
and mental states of others, humor and laughter, while originating in rough-and-
tumble social play, came to be used for additional purposes relating to social com-
munication and influence, tension relief, and coping with adversity.
The psychological functions of humor can be classified into three broad cate-
gories: (1) cognitive and social benefits of tf ; positive emotion of mirth, (2) uses of
humor for social communication and influence, and (3) tension relief and coping.
Cognitive and Social Functions of the Positive Emotion of Mirth
Human emotions have important adaptive functions. Emotions such as fear
and anger, for example, cause individuals to focus their attention on threats in the
1 • INTRODUCTION TO THE PSYCHOLOGY OF HUMOR
environment, mobilize their energies, and motivate them to take action to deal with
these threats (Levenson, 1994). However, the functions of positive emotions like mirth
and joy are less immediately obvious, since they do not seem to evoke specific action
patterns. In the past, psychologists tended to focus primarily on negative emotions
like depression, fear, and hostility, and did not give much attention to positive emo-
tions like mirth, joy, happiness, and love. More recently, however, psychologists have
begun to investigate positive emotions, and this research is beginning to shed light
on their functions.
Alice Isen (2003) summarized a body of experimental research indicating that
when people are experiencing positive emotions (including comedy-induced mirth),
as compared to neutral or negative emotions, they show improvements in a variety of
cognitive abilities and social behaviors. For example, they demonstrate greater cog-
nitive flexibility, enabling them to engage in more creative problem solving; more effi-
cient organization and integration of memory; more effective thinking, planning, and
judgment; and higher levels of social responsibility and prosocial behaviors such as
helpfulness and generosity (see also Lyubomirsky, King, and Diener, 2005). An exper-
iment by Barbara Fredrickson and Robert Levenson (1998) also demonstrated that
the induction of positive emotions, including mirth, helps to reduce physiological
arousal caused by negative emotions.
Based on these sorts of findings, Barbara Fredrickson (1998, 2001) has proposed
a "broaden-and-build" model of the psychological functions of positive emotions such
as mirth. Unlike negative emotions, which tend to narrow one's focus of attention and
motivate one to engage in specific actions, she suggested that positive emotions serve
to broaden the scope of the individual's focus of attention, allowing for more creative
problem-solving and an increased range of behavioral response options, and they also
build physical, intellectual, and social resources that are available to the individual for
dealing with life's challenges. She argued that positive emotions such as mirth are
evolved adaptations that contribute to both mental and physical health. Recent
research by Fredrickson and her colleagues on mirth and other positive emotions has
provided further support for these hypotheses (e.g., Fredrickson and Branigan, 2005;
Fredrickson et al., 2000).
Michelle Shiota and her colleagues (2004) have also proposed that positive emo-
tions may play an important role in the regulation of interpersonal relationships.
These authors pointed out that humans are social animals that require close rela-
tionships in order to survive. They suggested that positive emotions play a role in
accomplishing three fundamental tasks required for relationships: (1) identifying
potential relationship partners, (2) developing, negotiating, and maintaining key rela-
tionships, and (3) collective agency (i.e., working together with others to achieve goals
that could not be accomplished alone). They suggested that the humor-related posi-
tive emotion of mirth is effective for accomplishing all three of these tasks in various
types of relationships, including romantic partnerships, friendships, and group
relations. For example, the mirth associated with mutual laughter can be a way of
identifying members of an in-group, selecting and attracting partners, rewarding
cooperative efforts, and enhancing interpersonal bonding and group cohesion.
PSYCHOLOGICAL FUNCTIONS OF HUMOR
One way in which humor likely provides important psychological benefits, then,
is by inducing a positive emotional state that is typically shared among two or more
individuals. The enjoyable subjective feelings accompanying this emotional state
provide a strong incentive to seek out opportunities for humor and laughter, which
in turn fulfill a number of important cognitive and social functions. Many of these
emotion-related benefits were likely already present in the proto-humor of our early
hominid ancestors, providing an evolutionary survival advantage.
Social Communication and Influence
As we have seen, humorous interactions between people take a wide variety of
forms. When people engage in these sorts of humorous exchanges in their everyday
lives, they often have some (perhaps unconscious) purpose or social goal beyond
merely providing amusement and entertainment. Even when telling a joke or saying
funny things to make others laugh, people also often have the underlying goal of
impressing others with their wittiness and gaining attention, prestige, or approval.
Sociologist Michael Mulkay (1988) suggested that humor may be viewed as a mode
of interpersonal communication that is frequently used to convey implicit messages
in an indirect manner and to influence other people in various ways. Because it
involves playing with incongruities and contradictory ideas and conveys multiple
meanings at once, humor is a particularly useful form of communication in situations
in which a more serious and direct mode runs the risk of being too confrontational,
potentially embarrassing, or otherwise risky.
For example, if two friends attempt to discuss a difference of opinion in a serious
way, they may become embroiled in endless arguments and counterarguments, with
an accompanying escalation in feelings of frustration and annoyance. However, by
using humor to joke about each other's perspective, they can communicate a sense of
acceptance and appreciation of one another while still maintaining and acknowledg-
ing their different points of view (Kane, Suls, and Tedeschi, 1977). Similarly, if a con-
flict between two people escalates to the point where it threatens their relationship,
a joking comment from one of them can be a way of de-escalating the conflict while
enabling both of them to save face. Thus, humor can be a means of smoothing over
conflicts and tensions between people.
On the other hand, humor is also often used to convey critical or disparaging
messages that might not be well received if communicated in a more serious manner.
In friendly teasing, for example, a message of mild disapproval or censure is commu-
nicated using humor (Keltner et al., 2001). This allows the speaker to retract the
message if it is not well received by saying ''I was only joking." Indeed, since every-
one recognizes the ambiguous nature of humor, such a disclaimer is usually not even
necessary. Thus, humor is often a way for individuals to "save face" for themselves
and others, using it to soften the impact of a message or to "test the water" to see
how others will respond.
Some of the social functions of humor can also be quite aggressive, coercive, and
manipulative. Although it is a form of play, humor is not necessarily prosocial and
1 • INTRODUCTION TO THE PSYCHOLOGY OF HUMOR
benevolent, and indeed a good deal of humor involves laughing at the behavior and
characteristics of individuals who are perceived to be different in some way and there-
fore incongruous. Over the course of human evolution (much of which involved living
in small groups of hunter-gatherers), humor and laughter seem to have been co-opted
for the purpose of enhancing group identity by enforcing social norms within the
group and excluding members of out-groups, and this function of humor is still very
evident today (Alexander, 1986).
Whereas the "face-saving" communicative uses of humor often involve only two
people, these more aggressive and even hostile uses typically involve three individu-
als or groups: the speaker who communicates the humorous message, the listener(s)
who laugh at it, and the target(s) who are the "butt" of the humor. The target, who
may or may not be physically present, may be a particular individual or a nonspecific
member of a disparaged group, such as a particular gender, ethnic, or religious group.
The humor may be a spontaneous humorous comment or a canned ethnic or sexist
joke. This type of humor enables members of an in-group to enhance their feelings
of group identity and cohesiveness while excluding and emphasizing their differences
from members of an out-group. These aggressive types of humor are often perceived
by participants to be extremely funny and they evoke genuine feelings of mirth and
laughter, even though they occur at the expense of others.
The pleasurable emotion of mirth accompanying humor and laughter can there-
fore be gained at other people's expense, either by passively deriving amusement from
their misfortunes (as described by the interesting German word schadenfreude), or by
actively seeking to humiliate, embarrass, or ridicule them in some way and thereby
enhancing one's own status relative to theirs. Thus, humor can involve "laughing at"
as well as "laughing with." As we will see, many traditional theories suggest that
aggression is actually an essential element of all humor and laughter. Although most
theorists today would not take such an extreme view, few would disagree that humor
can be used in aggressive and even hostile ways.
Since being the target of others' laughter is painful and something most people
seek to avoid, aggressive forms of humor can also be used as a method of coercing
people into conforming to desired behaviors. Within social groups, humor is often
used to enforce group norms, either by making fun of the discrepant actions and traits
of people who are outside the group or by teasing members within the group when
they engage in deviant behavior. Thus, in aggressive types of joking, teasing, ridicule,
or sarcasm, humor can be used to exclude individuals from a group, reinforce power
and status differences, suppress behavior that does not conform to group norms, and
have a coercive influence on others.
In summary, the social play of humor can be used to communicate a variety of
messages and to achieve any number of social goals that individuals may have at any
particular time, some of which may be congenial and prosocial while others may be
more aggressive or coercive. Humor, then, is inherently neither friendly nor aggres-
sive: it is a means of deriving emotional pleasure that can be used for both amiable
and antagonistic purposes. This is the paradox of humor. If one's goal is to strengthen
relationships, smooth over conflicts, and build cohesiveness, humor can be useful
PSYCHOLOGICAL FUNCTIONS OF HUMOR
for those purposes. On the other hand, if one's goal is to ostracize, humiliate, or
manipulate someone, or to build up one's own status at the expense of others, humor
can be useful for those purposes as well. Either way, it can evoke genuine feelings of
mirth.
Tension Relief and Coping with Adversity
Another function of humor that has often been noted is its role in coping with
life stress and adversity (Lefcourt, 2001; Lefcourt and Martin, 1986). Over the course
of evolution, humans appear to have co-opted the nonserious play of humor as a means
of cognitively managing many of the events and situations that threaten their well-
being, by making light of them and turning them into something to be laughed at
(Dixon, 1980). Because it inherently involves incongruity and multiple interpretations,
humor provides a way for the individual to shift perspective on a stressful situation,
reappraising it from a new and less threatening point of view. As a consequence of
this humorous reappraisal, the situation becomes less stressful and more manageable
(Kuiper, Martin, and Olinger, 1993; R. A. Martin et al., 1993).
The positive emotion of mirth accompanying humor replaces the feeling of
anxiety, depression, or anger that would otherwise occur, enabling the person to think
more broadly and flexibly and to engage in creative problem solving (Fredrickson,
2001). In addition, this positive emotion may have a physiological benefit of speed-
ing recovery from the cardiovascular effects of any negative stress-related emotions
that may have been evoked (Fredrickson and Levenson, 1998). Thus, humor may be
viewed as an important emotion regulation mechanism, which can contribute to
mental health (Gross and Mufioz, 1995).
Studies of survivors of extreme adversity such as the brutal conditions of con-
centration camps indicate that humor, in the form of joking about the oppressors as
well as the hardships endured, is often an important means of engendering positive
emotions; maintaining group cohesion and morale; preserving a sense of mastery,
hope, and self-respect; and thereby enabling individuals to survive in seemingly hope-
less circumstances (C. V Ford and Spaulding, 1973; Frankl, 1984; Henman, 2001).
Less extreme examples of the liberating potential of humor as a means of triumphing
over adversity and refusing to be defeated by the slings and arrows of life can be found
in the daily lives of many people. Humor and laughter provide a means for cancer
patients to make light of their illness and maintain a spirit of optimism, and jokes
about death are a way for people to distance themselves emotionally from thoughts
of their own mortality. Thus, by laughing at the fundamental incongruities of life and
diminishing threats by turning them into objects of nonserious play, humor is a way
of refusing to be overcome by the people and situations, both large and small, that
threaten our well-being.
The aggressive aspects of humor discussed earlier also play a role in this coping
function. Many of the threats to well-being that humans experience come from other
people. By making fun of the stupidity, incompetence, laziness, or other failings of
the people who frustrate, irritate, and annoy them and thwart their progress toward
1 • INTRODUCTION TO THE PSYCHOLOGY OF HUMOR
their goals, individuals are able to minimize the feelings of distress that these others
might cause, and derive some pleasure at their expense. This use of aggressive humor
in coping can be directed toward particular individuals who create difficulties or at
nonspecific representatives of broader social groups or power structures that are per-
ceived as irritants. While providing a means of enhancing personal feelings of well-
being in the short run, however, such aggressive uses of humor for coping can also
alienate others and have an adverse effect on valued relationships in the longer term
(R. A. Martin et al., 2003).
Like all forms of humor, the use of humor for coping with adversity usually takes
place in a social context. People typically do not begin laughing and cracking jokes
about their problems when they are all alone. Instead, coping humor commonly takes
the form of joking and laughing with other people, either in the midst of an adverse
situation or shortly afterwards. For example, when the events of a particularly
stressful day are discussed among a group of close friends later in the evening, diffi-
culties that earlier seemed distressing and overwhelming can be perceived as humor-
ously incongruous and become the basis of a great deal of hilarity and boisterous
laughter. The greater the emotional arousal and tension engendered by the stressful
events, the greater the pleasure and the louder the laughter when joking about them
afterwards.
This tension-releasing function of humor has been noted by many theorists over
the years, and some have even suggested that tension relief is a defining characteris-
tic of all humor. Although this view is perhaps overstated, it does reflect one of the
important functions of humor and laughter. Thus, it appears that over the course of
human evolution, the cognitive play of humor has been adapted as a means of dealing
with difficulties and hardships, contributing to the resilience and coping potentials
that have enabled humans to survive and thrive.
A BRIEF HISTORY OF HUMOR
Today the word humor is an umbrella term with a generally positive, socially desir-
able connotation, which refers to anything people say or do that is perceived to be
funny and evokes mirth and laughter in others. Interestingly, this broad meaning of
humor has developed only quite recently. Indeed, the word has a very interesting and
complex history, starting out with an entirely different meaning and gradually accu-
mulating new connotations over the centuries. Cultural historian Daniel Wickberg
(1998) has provided a detailed and fascinating analysis of the history of this concept,
from which I have drawn much of what follows (see also Ruch, 1998a).
Etymology of Humor
Humor began as a Latin word (humorem) meaning fluid or liquid. It still retains
this meaning in physiology in reference to bodily fluids, such as the aqueous and vit-
reous humors of the eye. The Greek physician Hippocrates (fourth century B.C.), who
A BRIEF HISTORY OF HUMOR
is considered to be the father of medicine, believed that good health depends on the
proper balance of four fluids, or "humors," of the body, namely blood, phlegm, black
bile, and yellow bile. Later, the Greek physician Galen (second century A.D.), who
lived in Rome, introduced the idea that these four fluids possessed particular psycho-
logical qualities, so that an excess of any one of them in an individual created a certain
kind of temperament or character. A predominance of blood caused one to have a san-
guine or cheerful temperament, too much black bile produced a melancholic or
depressive personality, and so on.
Besides being seen as the basis of relatively enduring character traits, fluctuations
in these body fluids began also to be viewed as the cause of more temporary mood
states. These meanings of humor as an enduring character trait or a temporary mood
are still present today when we speak of someone being a "good-humored person" or
"in a bad humor." Thus, having originally referred to a physical substance, humor
gradually developed psychological connotations relating to both enduring tempera-
ment and temporary mood. Until the sixteenth century, however, it still did not have
any connotation of funniness or association with laughter.
In the English language, the word humor (which had been borrowed from the
French humeur) continued to evolve. In the sixteenth century, the idea of humor as
an unbalanced temperament or personality trait led to its use to refer to any
behavior that deviates from social norms. Thus, a "humor" came to mean an odd,
eccentric, or peculiar person (cf. Ben Jonson's Every Man Out of His Humour, 1598,
cited by Wickberg, 1998). Because such people were often viewed as ridiculous, or
objects of laughter and ridicule, it was a small step from there to the association of
humor with funniness and laughter, and its entry into the field of comedy (Ruch,
1998a).
Eventually, the odd or peculiar person who was the object of laughter became
known as a "humorist," whereas a "man of humor" was someone who took pleasure
in imitating the peculiarities of a humorist (e.g., Corbyn Morris in An Essay Toward
Fixing the True Standard of Wit, Humour, Raillery, Satire, and Ridicule, 1 744, cited by
Wickberg, 1998). Thus, humor came to be seen as a talent involving the ability to
make others laugh. It was not until the mid- to late nineteenth century, however, that
the term humorist took on the modern meaning of someone who creates a product
called "humor" in order to amuse others (Wickberg, 1998). Mark Twain is viewed by
many scholars as one of the first humorists in this modern sense.
Changing Views of Laughter
At the same time that the meaning of the word humor was evolving in the English
language, popular conceptions of laughter and the laughable were also changing
(Wickberg, 1998). Prior to the eighteenth century, laughter was viewed by most
authors almost entirely in negative terms. No distinction was made between "laugh-
ing with" and "laughing at," since all laughter was thought to arise from making
fun of someone. Most references to laughter in the Bible, for example, are linked
with scorn, derision, mockery, or contempt (Koestler, 1964). The philosophical
1 • INTRODUCTION TO THE PSYCHOLOGY OF HUMOR
conception of laughter as essentially a form of aggression can be traced to Aristotle,
who believed that it was always a response to ugliness or deformity in another person,
although he thought it would not occur if the object of laughter aroused other strong
emotions such as pity or anger. Following in the long tradition of Aristotle, the
seventeenth-century English philosopher Thomas Hobbes saw laughter as being
based on a feeling of superiority, or "sudden glory," resulting from some perception
of inferiority in another person.
During the eighteenth century, the word ridicule (from Latin ridiculum = joke and
ridiculus = laughable) was used in much the same way that we use the word humor
today, that is, as a generic term for anything that causes laughter and mirth. However,
it had a much more negative and aggressive connotation than humor has today.
Whereas laughter was a passive response, ridicule was seen as active and aggressive,
a form of attack. Throughout Europe during this time, ridicule became a popular
debating technique for outwitting and humiliating one's adversaries by making them
laughable to others. It also grew into a socially accepted conversational art form for
entertaining others in social gatherings. The person who was adept at generating
clever remarks to skewer others and thereby provoke laughter was seen as a particu-
larly desirable dinner guest. Other words that were commonly used during this time
along with ridicule were raillery and banter. While both of these terms referred to
aggressive forms of witty repartee used in conversation, banter was seen as a coarser,
more impolite, and low-class type of ridicule, whereas raillery was more refined and
socially pleasing.
With the growing view of ridicule as a socially acceptable verbal art form and a
desirable part of amiable conversation, the idea of laughter as an expression of con-
tempt and scorn gradually gave way to a view of it as a response to cleverness and
gamesmanship. The sense of superiority inherent in laughter was now downplayed
and seen as secondary, and the intellectual aspects were elevated over the emotional.
Laughter was now associated with a game of wits, a way of showing off one's clever-
ness by creating intellectual surprise in novel relationships between ideas, rather than
an expression of contempt, scorn, superiority, and aggression. By the early nineteenth
century, Hobbes's superiority theory was being replaced by theories that viewed
incongruity as the essence of laughter. This theory was epitomized in the statement
by William Hazlitt, an English writer of the early nineteenth century, that "the essence
of the laughable is the incongruous" (quoted by Wickberg, 1998, p. 56).
This shift away from an essentially aggressive view of laughter was motivated also
by a new sensibility among middle-class British society in the eighteenth century that
emphasized the importance of benevolence, kindness, civility, and sympathy in people
of refinement. As reflected, for example, in the writings of Adam Smith (e.g., Theory
of Moral Sentiments, 1759, cited by Wickberg, 1998), a new set of humanitarian values
elevated emotional discernment above cold rational logic. In keeping with this general
outlook, social reformers began to argue in favor of a more humanitarian form of
laughter based on sympathy rather than aggression. This led to the need for a new
word to describe this benevolent basis of laughter, and humor was co-opted to serve
this purpose. In contrast, the word ivit (from Old English -witan = to know) began to
A BRIEF HISTORY OF HUMOR
be used to refer to the more aggressive types of laughter-evoking behaviors that had
previously been described by the generic term ridicule. Thus, by the early nineteenth
century, the umbrella term ridicule had been replaced by the two contrasting words
wit and humor.
Wit versus Humor
Both wit and humor were seen as being based on incongruity and were methods
of provoking laughter, but they were thought to do so in radically different ways. The
distinction between these two concepts was first made in theories of dramatic comedy,
where wit was associated with comedy based on intellect, while humor involved
comedy based on character (Wickberg, 1998). Over time, wit took on the meaning of
the old word ridicule, referring to aggressive cleverness and wordplay, whereas humor
emphasized sympathy and benevolence, and was seen as a more positive and desirable
basis for laughter. Wit was intellectual, sarcastic, and related to antipathy, whereas
humor was emotional, congenial, and related to "fellow-feeling."
The two words also had different social class connotations. Wit was associated
with the aristocracy and elitism, whereas humor was a more bourgeois, middle-class
concept, associated with universality and democracy. Wit was also considered to be
more artificial and something that could be acquired through learning and practice,
whereas humor was viewed as more natural and an inborn talent in the individual.
Thus, it was generally recognized that laughter could be either aggressive or benev-
olent, and the modern distinction between "laughing at" and "laughing with" was cap-
tured by wit and humor, respectively.
Not surprisingly, humor came to be seen as more socially desirable than wit, and
was described by many writers in glowing terms. For example, one nineteenth-century
author described humor as "the combination of the laughable with an element of love,
tenderness, sympathy, warm-heartedness, or affection" (quoted by Wickberg, 1998,
p. 65). The association between humor and democratic values (as opposed to the
elitism and snobbery of wit) made humor a very popular concept in the egalitarian
culture of the United States, particularly after the Civil War. In his writings on the
subject, Sigmund Freud, like most of his contemporaries, also made the distinction
between humor as benevolent and psychologically healthy and wit as aggressive and
of questionable psychological value (Freud, 1960 [1905]).
Over the course of the twentieth century, however, the distinction between wit
and humor gradually disappeared, and humor came to predominate as the umbrella
term for all things laughable. Humor no longer represented just one (benign) way of
eliciting laughter, but it now referred to all sources of laughter, including more aggres-
sive forms that would previously have been described as wit. At the same time, though,
the positive and socially desirable connotation of humor was retained, and all laugh-
ter therefore came to be seen as essentially benevolent and sympathetic. All the pos-
itive characteristics that had previously been ascribed to humor, as a subspecies of
the laughable that was distinguished from wit, were now seen as applicable to all
laughter-eliciting phenomena, including the more aggressive forms once identified
1 • INTRODUCTION TO THE PSYCHOLOGY OF HUMOR
with wit. Although laughter itself had once been viewed as essentially aggressive, by
the early twentieth century, many theorists began to suggest that it almost always con-
tains an element of sympathy. Even those who still subscribed to the superiority theory
began to view the aggressive aspects of laughter as tempered in some way by sympa-
thy or playfulness rather than being truly aggressive and malevolent (cf. Gruner,
1997).
Thus, from the seventeenth to the twentieth century, popular conceptions of
laughter underwent a remarkable transformation, shifting from the aggressive antipa-
thy of superiority theory, to the neutrality of incongruity theory, to the view that
laughter could sometimes be sympathetic, to the notion that sympathy is a necessary
condition for laughter (Wickberg, 1998). These changing views were also reflected in
the prevailing social norms. As recently as the 1860s, it was considered impolite to
laugh in public in the United States. Even in the early twentieth century, some spheres
of social activity (e.g., religion, education, and politics) were considered inappropri-
ate for humor and laughter. Today, of course, humor and laughter are not only con-
sidered acceptable, but are actively encouraged in virtually all social settings.
Evolution of the Concept of Sense of Humor
Along with changes in the meaning of humor and attitudes toward laughter, the
concept of "sense of humor" has also evolved over the past two centuries (Wickberg,
1998). In the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, British philosophers devel-
oped the notion of various aesthetic and moral "senses," which were seen as refined
sensitivities or abilities to discern or judge the quality of certain things. Thus, they
spoke of a sense of beauty, a sense of honor, a sense of decency, moral sense, and
common sense. The "sense of the ridiculous" was an early expression to describe sen-
sitivity to laughable things. By the mid-nineteenth century, however, this had been
replaced by the "sense of humor."
Although it began as a purely descriptive term, the sense of humor quickly became
a highly valued virtue, taking on the positive connotations that were associated with
humor (as opposed to wit) during that time. By the 1870s, the sense of humor acquired
the very desirable meaning that it has today, referring to a cardinal virtue. To say that
someone had a sense of humor was to say something very positive about his or her
character. Indeed, a sense of humor came to be one of the most important charac-
teristics a person could have. On the other hand, to say that someone lacked a sense
of humor was seen as one of the worst things that could be said about him or her. No
one wanted to admit that they did not have a sense of humor.
Over the course of the twentieth century, the concept of sense of humor contin-
ued to be very desirable, but also became increasingly vague and undefined. While it
always retained some notion of the ability to make others laugh or the enjoyment of
amusement and laughter, it took on the added meaning of a more general set of desir-
able personality characteristics. What it meant to have a sense of humor came to be
defined in large part by what it meant not to have one. Saying that someone lacked a
sense of humor came to mean that he or she was excessively serious, fanatical, or ego-
tistical, an inflexible, temperamental extremist. The lack of a sense of humor was
A BRIEF HISTORY OF HUMOR
viewed as a defining characteristic of some forms of mental illness (particularly schiz-
ophrenia), denoting instability and paranoia (Wickberg, 1998).
By the 1930s, a sense of humor was seen by many psychologists as an essential
ingredient of mental health. For example, Gordon Allport (1961) associated a sense
of humor with self-awareness, insight, and tolerance, and viewed it as a characteris-
tic of the mature or healthy personality. It is important to note, however, that he dis-
tinguished between this mature type of humor, which he saw as quite rare, and the
less healthy "sense of the comic," or laughter at absurdities, puns, and the degrada-
tion of others, which he saw as much more common. In sum, having a sense of humor
became synonymous with being stable and well-adjusted, being able to adapt to stress,
being temperate, affable, not prone to anger, and easygoing.
During the twentieth century, the sense of humor also took on sociopolitical con-
notations and was used for propaganda purposes. In the United States, it came to be
seen as a distinctly American virtue, having to do with tolerance and democracy, in
contrast to those living in dictatorships, such as the Germans under Nazism or the
Russians during the Communist era, who were thought to be devoid of humor. After
the tragic events of September 1 1, 2001, many American commentators expressed the
opinion that Al Qaeda terrorists, and perhaps even all Moslems, lacked a sense of
humor (despite the fact that videotapes of Osama bin Laden clearly showed him laugh-
ing and joking with his comrades).
Whereas too much humor in the nineteenth century was considered a liability in
someone wishing to run for office, by the mid-twentieth century a sense of humor
became a necessary characteristic in a politician, especially someone aspiring to be
president. A popular way for both liberals and conservatives to disparage one another
was to claim that they lacked a sense of humor. There has also long been a sexist
aspect to the concept, which was viewed as an essentially masculine characteristic.
Until quite recently, it was commonly assumed by many writers that women gener-
ally lacked a sense of humor (Wickberg, 1998).
The positive qualities associated with the vague concept of sense of humor as a
personality trait in turn fed back into popular connotations of humor and laughter
more generally. By the end of the twentieth century, humor and laughter were not
only seen as essentially benevolent, but as important factors in mental and physical
health. This view gained greater prominence following the publication of a book by
Norman Cousins (1979), a well-known magazine editor, describing how he suppos-
edly cured himself of a painful and debilitating disease by means of hearty laughter
(along with massive doses of vitamin C). This book appeared at a time of growing
disenchantment with traditional Western approaches to medicine, and fed into the
rising popularity of alternative or complementary medicines.
The idea that humor and laughter are beneficial for one's health, bolstered also
by psychoneuroimmunology research suggesting links between emotions and immu-
nity, led to the growth of a popular "humor and health movement" among many
health care providers, including nurses, physicians, occupational therapists, social
workers, and others. Hospital clowns and comedy rooms became familiar sights in
many hospitals, as humor and laughter came to be viewed as a method of speeding
recovery in patients suffering from chronic pain, cancer, and other ailments. These
1 • INTRODUCTION TO THE PSYCHOLOGY OF HUMOR
developments in health care also contributed to increased interest in applications of
humor in other domains including business, education, and psychotherapy. Although
this humor movement has always been seen as somewhat on the fringes rather than
the mainstream, it has attracted considerable attention to potential benefits of humor
and laughter in the popular media as well as professional journals.
A very positive view of humor and laughter continues to predominate in our
culture today. Although there is some recognition that humor can occasionally be
aggressive or inappropriate, this is perceived as an aberration; "normal" humor is sym-
pathetic and benevolent. Aggression-based theories of humor are generally out of
favor with contemporary humor scholars, having been replaced by more benign
cognition-based incongruity theories. Thus, over the past century, humor has taken
on a broad positive connotation. No longer does it merely involve the perception of
incongruity, funniness, mirth, and laughter, but it is also very beneficial, desirable, and
health-enhancing (for an interesting analysis of humor in contemporary American
society, see Lewis, 2006).
This brief overview of the changes in social attitudes and conceptions of humor
and laughter over the past few centuries helps us to put our current assumptions
and biases into a broader historical perspective. Although humor and laughter are
universal in humans and are likely a product of natural selection, the way people use
and express them in a given time and place is strongly influenced by cultural norms,
beliefs, attitudes, and values. Most people today view humor as essentially positive,
benevolent, and desirable, and it is strongly encouraged in most areas of life. It is
easy to assume that these attitudes and behavior patterns are universal and have
always been present in all cultures. Not so long ago, however, laughter in our own
culture was seen as essentially aggressive, malevolent, and undesirable, and too much
laughter was frowned upon. The existence of such divergent views over the course of
a relatively brief period of history suggests that there is likely an element of truth to
both extremes. It is important to recognize that humor can be used in ways that are
aggressive as well as sympathetic, and can involve "laughing at" as well as "laughing
with."
If we wish to take a scientific approach to the study of humor, we need to be con-
scious of the assumptions and biases that we ourselves have absorbed from our culture
and that may color our own thinking. As much as possible, we must try to approach
the subject in an objective manner, using empirical research methods to evaluate
popular beliefs instead of merely assuming them to be true. In our theories and
research, we also need to be careful to distinguish between those aspects that are
universal in the human species and those that are specific to particular cultures at
particular times.
HUMOR AND PSYCHOLOGY
Psychology is often defined as the scientific study of behavior. The concept of
behavior in this definition is a very broad one, embracing all kinds of overt actions,
HUMOR AND PSYCHOLOGY
speech, and social interactions, as well as less easily observed processes such as
thoughts, feelings, attitudes, and the biological mechanisms underlying all of these in
the brain and nervous system. With such a diverse subject matter, psychology is a very
broad discipline, and is divided into a number of subfields focusing on particular
aspects of behavior, including cognitive, social, biologic, developmental, clinical, and
so on. As I have already noted, humor touches on all of these areas. Psychologists
view themselves as scientists, taking an empirical and predominantly quantitative
research approach to test theories and hypotheses about behavior. Psychological
research methods include controlled laboratory experiments in which one variable is
manipulated to observe its effect on other variables, as well as correlational approaches
in which variables are operationally defined and quantified and their association across
individuals is assessed.
As Jon Roeckelein (2002) has noted, one of the curiosities of the psychology of
humor is that, although it comprises quite a sizable research literature, it has gone
largely unnoticed in mainstream psychology up to now. In a search of PsycINFO, a
database of psychology publications, using the keywords humor, humour, laughter, irony,
and other closely related terms, I found references to just over 3400 peer-reviewed
journal articles published as of early 2006. Despite the extensiveness of this research
literature, however, it is rarely mentioned in undergraduate textbooks or psychology
reference works. Roeckelein (2002) examined 136 introductory psychology texts pub-
lished between 1885 and 1996, and found only three — all published before 1930 —
that made any reference to humor or related topics. Although humor is occasionally
mentioned in more advanced undergraduate texts devoted to particular branches of
psychology (e.g., social, developmental), the treatment is usually only brief and super-
ficial. Roeckelein also observed that this topic receives only rare and cursory mention
in scholarly reference works such as the Annual Review of Psychology. The most recent
two-volume edition of The Handbook of Social Psychology (Gilbert, Fiske, and Lindzey,
1998), a major reference work for social psychologists spanning more than 2000 pages,
contains only a single brief mention, although early editions contained a whole
chapter on humor, laughter, and play (Berlyne, 1969; Flugel, 1954).
Two main reasons have been suggested for this general neglect of humor in main-
stream psychology until now. First, given its essentially nonserious nature and asso-
ciation with fun and mirth, some researchers may have seen it as too frivolous and
unimportant a subject for serious academic study. However, as Berlyne (1969) pointed
out more than 35 years ago, the apparent frivolity of humor is a good reason why it
should receive more, rather than less, research attention than other psychological
behaviors whose adaptive functions are easier to understand. The fact that all human
societies expend a great deal of time and energy engaging in humor and laughter,
while the purpose of this activity is not immediately obvious, makes this a puzzle
worthy of careful and systematic study.
Several decades of research effort since Berlyne's time, approaching the subject
from a number of psychological perspectives, are beginning to give us some intrigu-
ing answers to this puzzle. For example, recent evolutionary models suggest that
humor and laughter may have played an important role in the formation and
1 • INTRODUCTION TO THE PSYCHOLOGY OF HUMOR
maintenance of social groups in our evolutionary history, and therefore have inter-
esting implications for our understanding of human verbal and nonverbal communi-
cation and social organization (Gervais and Wilson, 2005; Panksepp, 2000). Thus, the
view of humor as too frivolous for serious study is becoming increasingly difficult to
defend.
Fortunately, the idea that psychologists should concentrate only on "serious"
topics like psychopathology and human deficits seems to be waning in recent years,
as demonstrated by such developments as the "positive psychology" movement, with
its emphasis on the study of human strengths and positive emotions (Aspinwall and
Staudinger, 2003; Seligman and Csikszentmihalyi, 2000). One would hope that psy-
chology has moved beyond the situation of 30 years ago when Walter O'Connell
(1976) lamented that "anyone embarking upon research into the origins and devel-
opment of humor will, more often than not, be seen as a deviant and a freak, one who
does not take psychology seriously enough" (p. 316).
A second possible reason for the general neglect of humor, suggested by Dixon
(1980), is the sheer elusiveness of the phenomena under investigation. The diversity
of stimuli and situations that evoke mirth, the lack of a precise definition of the
concept, the multiplicity of theories that have been proposed to account for it, and
the difficulties one encounters in trying to capture and study it in controlled experi-
ments in the laboratory may have caused researchers to shy away from it as a subject
of investigation.
Once again, however, the complexity and elusiveness of the topic is all the more
reason for researchers to apply their efforts, skills, and ingenuity to an understanding
of it. Furthermore, as I will try to demonstrate in this book, the cumulative efforts of
many researchers over the past few decades have brought increasing focus to the field,
generating several fairly circumscribed theories with testable hypotheses and devel-
oping practical and reliable research methods for investigating them. Thus, although
it certainly continues to pose interesting challenges for researchers to tackle, humor
no longer seems to be such an intractable topic of study.
In addition to psychology, humor is also a topic of study in a number of other
disciplines, including anthropology, biology, computer science, linguistics, literary and
cultural studies, neuroscience, philosophy, religious studies, and sociology. There are
even scholarly works on the mathematics of humor (Casadonte, 2003; Paulos, 1980).
The International Society for Humor Studies (ISHS) is a multidisciplinary organiza-
tion of humor scholars that holds annual conferences and publishes a scholarly journal
entitled Humor: International Journal of Humor Research (for more information, see the
ISHS website, available at www.hnu.edu/ishs). At various points in this book, I will
touch on some of the contributions of these other disciplines that have augmented
the research of psychologists.
In addition, humor is a topic of interest to many professional practitioners in
health care (e.g., physicians, nurses, occupational and physical therapists), counseling,
social work, education, and business. The Association for Applied and Therapeutic
Humor (AATH) is a professional society of individuals from many of these profes-
sions who are interested in applications of humor in their respective fields (available
CONCLUSION
at www.aath.org). Besides addressing psychologists, an additional purpose of this book
is therefore to introduce interested individuals from these other academic disciplines
and professions to the methods, theories, and empirical findings of psychological
research on humor.
CONCLUSION
In summary, humor is a universal human activity that most people experience
many times over the course of a typical day and in all sorts of social contexts. There
is a good deal of evidence suggesting that humor and laughter have an evolutionary
origin and therefore confer adaptive benefits. At the same time, there are obviously
important cultural influences on the way humor is used and the situations that are
considered appropriate for laughter. From a psychological perspective, humor is
essentially a positive emotion called mirth, which is typically elicited in social con-
texts by a cognitive appraisal process involving the perception of playful, nonserious
incongruity, and which is expressed by the facial and vocal behavior of laughter. In
social interactions, humor takes on many different forms, including canned jokes,
spontaneous witticisms, and unintentionally funny utterances and actions.
Psychological functions of humor include the cognitive and social benefits of the
positive emotion of mirth, and its uses as a mode of social communication and influ-
ence, and as a way of relieving tension, regulating emotions, and coping with stress.
Popular conceptions of laughter have changed dramatically over the past two or three
centuries, from being viewed as essentially aggressive and somewhat socially inap-
propriate to being seen as positive, psychologically and physically healthy, and socially
desirable. The meaning of the word humor has also evolved from a narrow focus on
benign and sympathetic sources of mirth distinguished from more aggressive types of
wit, to its use as a broad umbrella term to refer to all sources of laughter. Although
humor has important psychological functions and touches on all branches of psy-
chology, and there is a sizable and growing research literature on the topic, main-
stream psychology has paid relatively little attention to it until now.
In the next two chapters, I will give an overview of early research in the psy-
chology of humor that was conducted prior to the early 1980s. My review of this
research will be organized around five major theoretical approaches that have their
roots in earlier philosophical conceptualizations of humor and laughter and have been
particularly influential in psychological research over the years. This discussion of the-
ories and early research will provide a background for the remaining chapters, which
will focus particularly on research conducted during the past two decades.
In Chapters 4 to 8, I will explore relevant theories, research approaches, and
empirical findings in the study of humor from the perspective of each of the basic
research domains of psychology, with individual chapters devoted to cognitive, social,
biological, personality, and developmental psychology. Chapters 9 and 10 will focus
on research examining the implications of humor for mental and physical health, cor-
responding to the fields of clinical and health psychology, respectively. Finally, in
1 • INTRODUCTION TO THE PSYCHOLOGY OF HUMOR
Chapter 11,1 will examine theories and research pertaining to potential applications
of humor in several applied areas, including psychotherapy and counseling, education,
and industrial-organizational psychology. By the end of the book, I hope it will be
evident that the study of humor has relevance to every area of the discipline.
It has often been noted that the academic study of humor is not in itself very
funny, and that nothing kills a joke like analyzing it. As McComas (1923) observed,
"he who approaches laughter upon science bent will find it no laughing matter"
(p. 45). Journalists reporting on the annual conferences of ISHS often take delight in
pointing out the apparent irony of scholars presenting very weighty and unfunny
research papers on the subject of humor. There is no reason, though, why a scholarly
work on humor needs to be funny any more than studies of human sexuality should
be titillating or depression research should be gloomy. In my experience, humor schol-
ars, while taking their research seriously, tend to be just as funny as anyone else, or
perhaps even more so, in their everyday lives.
In keeping with a long-standing tradition of scholarly books on humor, I there-
fore warn the reader at the outset that you are not likely to find this book particularly
funny. However, I do hope you will find it interesting and informative, and that it will
pique your curiosity and eagerness to engage in further study of this intriguing topic.
CHAPTER
Theories and Early
Research I: Psychoanalytic and
Superiority Theories
V V hat are the mental processes involved
in "getting a joke" or perceiving something to be funny? What are the elements that
need to be present (i.e., necessary and sufficient conditions) for humor and laughter
to occur? Why is humor so enjoyable, and what motivates us to engage in it? These
sorts of questions have perplexed thinkers for centuries, and numerous theories of
humor have been proposed by philosophers, psychologists, linguists, and other theo-
rists (for more detailed discussion, see Keith-Spiegel, 1972; Roeckelein, 2002). Greig
(1923) listed 88 different theories, although he acknowledged that many of them dif-
fered from one another in only minor ways. In this chapter and the next, I will focus
on five general theoretical approaches that have been most influential in psychologi-
cal humor research, namely, psychoanalytic, superiority/disparagement, arousal,
incongruity, and reversal theory. The first two will be reviewed in the present chapter,
and the remaining three in the next one.
Theories are a way of organizing information and seeking to explain phenomena
in a parsimonious way. Theories are not judged so much on the basis of whether they
are right or wrong, but on the basis of their usefulness in accounting for phenomena
and generating testable hypotheses. Thus, good theories have "heuristic" value in sug-
gesting directions for research. A good theory is one that is clearly defined and well
specified. A theory should define the conditions that are both necessary and sufficient
for a given phenomenon to occur. A good theory is also potentially falsifiable. In other
31
THEORIES AND EARLY RESEARCH I
words, it makes predictions which, if proven untrue, require a rejection, or at least a
modification, of the theory.
Unfortunately, most of the general theories of humor that have been proposed
do not meet all these stringent criteria. They often use rather vaguely defined con-
cepts, are unable to specify all the necessary and sufficient conditions for humor, and
are not falsifiable, since a way can typically be found to account for any discrepant
research findings. Nonetheless, different humor theories are useful for suggesting par-
ticular avenues for research. In many ways, the different theories are like the six blind
men and the elephant, each of whom felt a different part of the animal and came away
with a different conclusion about what an elephant is like (Berger, 1995). Thus, each
theory accounts for some aspects or types of humor, but fails to give a complete
picture. To gain a broad understanding of humor, we need to combine insights from
all the different theories.
My review of theoretical issues in these two chapters is also an opportunity to
provide an overview of the early psychological humor research that was generated
by each theory. In these two chapters I will focus particularly on research conducted
prior to the early 1980s, to set the stage for the discussion of more recent investiga-
tions in subsequent chapters. As we will see, interest in the various theoretical
approaches has shifted over time, with different theories being particularly popular at
different times. This changing popularity of various humor theories parallels the rise
and fall of broader theoretical approaches, research methodologies, and research
topics that have gone in and out of fashion throughout the history of psychology as
a whole.
Thus, the psychoanalytic approach to humor predominated in the research of the
1940s and 1950s and had largely disappeared by the 1980s, reflecting the rise and fall
of psychoanalytic theory during that time in psychology as a whole. In the 1960s and
1970s, interest among social psychologists in the roles of physiological arousal and
cognitive appraisal processes in emotion was reflected in the revival of arousal-based
theories of humor. The popularity of research on aggression around the same time
also contributed to a renewed interest in superiority theories, which view humor as a
form of aggression. With the rise of cognitive approaches to psychology in the 1970s
(when computers had become widely accessible and began to be viewed as a model
of human information processing), cognitively oriented incongruity theories of humor
also began to be popular.
Today, with the cognitive approach dominating all areas of psychology and related
disciplines, cognitive theories of humor tend to predominate. However, as we will see
throughout this book, many of the themes from each of the traditional theories con-
tinue to influence research today. As in other areas of contemporary psychology, in
humor research we are seeing a movement away from "grand theories" that attempt
to explain all aspects of humor toward smaller "mini-theories" that focus on more cir-
cumscribed aspects (e.g., teasing, irony). Researchers today also tend to draw on a
variety of theoretical influences to develop their models and hypotheses, rather than
remaining committed to a single traditional theoretical approach.
PSYCHOANALYTIC THEORY
PSYCHOANALYTIC THEORY
Sigmund Freud's psychoanalytic view of humor was by far the most influential
theory in psychological humor research during the first half of the twentieth century,
a period when Freudian theory was quite prominent in psychology as a whole. Freud's
general theory of psychology posited that each of us embodies a seething cauldron of
conflicting motives and desires (Freud, 1935). Childish, immature, and largely un-
conscious sexual and aggressive (libidinal) drives, residing in the id, seek instant grat-
ification and expression on the basis of the pleasure principle. The superego, which
incorporates the demands and dictates of society as embodied in the internalized
parents, strongly opposes the impulses of the id. The ego, functioning on the reality
principle, attempts to find some adaptive compromise among the demands of the
id, the superego, and the real world, employing a variety of more or less adaptive
defense mechanisms to protect itself from the otherwise overwhelming anxiety that
arises from these conflicting forces. Early in his writing career, Freud turned his atten-
tion to the role of humor in this psychological drama. Freud's theoretical writings on
humor are contained in two publications: the book Jokes and Their Relation to the
Unconscious (Freud, 1960 [1905]), and a short paper simply entitled "Humour" (Freud,
1928).
Overview of the Theory
From the writer and popular philosopher Herbert Spencer (1860), Freud bor-
rowed the idea that the purpose of laughter is to release excess nervous energy. In this
view, when energy that has built up in the nervous system is no longer needed, it must
be released in some way, and laughter is one way for this to occur. According to Freud,
there are three different types or categories of laughter-related phenomena: (1) wit
or jokes, (2) humor, and (3) the comic. Each of these involves a different mechanism
by which psychic energy is saved or economized and is consequently dissipated in the
form of laughter. Jokes (or wit) make use of a number of clever cognitive "jokework"
techniques, such as displacement, condensation, unification, and indirect representa-
tion, that serve as a kind of distraction to the superego, allowing unconscious aggres-
sive and sexual impulses arising from the id (which would normally be repressed) to
be briefly expressed and enjoyed. The inhibitory energy that would normally be
required to repress these libidinal impulses becomes briefly redundant as a result of
the joke, and it is this energy that is released in the form of laughter. Freud referred
to the release of libidinal (sexual or aggressive) drive as the tendentious element of
jokes, while the cognitive techniques involved in the jokework were called the non-
tendentious elements. Thus, according to Freud, the reason we enjoy jokes so much is
that they enable us to experience for a moment the illicit pleasure derived from
releasing some of our primitive sexual and aggressive impulses. We do not feel guilty
about this, because our superego (conscience) is temporarily distracted by the clever
THEORIES AND EARLY RESEARCH I
cognitive trick included in the joke, and we are often not even consciously aware of
the degree to which the joke contains such aggressive and sexual themes.
These ideas can be illustrated with the following joke (from McGhee, 1979,
p. 9):
One bachelor asked another, "How did you like your stay at the nudist camp?"
"Well," he answered, "It was okay after a while. The first three days were the hardest."
The jokework here involves the cognitive effort required to detect the double meaning
of the last word in the joke, which can refer either to the difficulty of the experience
or to the man getting an erection. The initial interpretation of the word implies a
negative connotation, but the second one reveals that the experience was actually sex-
ually arousing and enjoyable. According to Freudian theory, this clever play on words
diverts our attention from the fact that the joke has allowed us to vicariously enjoy
the erotic pleasure of this sexually inexperienced man ("bachelor") who finds himself
surrounded by naked women. The psychic energy that our conscience would nor-
mally employ to suppress such illicit pleasure becomes momentarily redundant, and
it is therefore diverted to fuel the activity of laughter.
As another example, consider the following joke (also taken from McGhee, 1979,
p. 9):
Mr. Brown: "This is disgusting. I just found out that the janitor has made love to every woman in
the building except one."
His wife: "Oh, it must be that stuck-up Mrs. Johnson on the third floor."
Here the jokework involves the mental process of pursuing the inference of the wife's
seemingly off-hand comment to its logical conclusion: she herself has had a sexual
liaison with the janitor. Although the tendentious element in this joke again appears
initially to be a sexual one, a closer examination reveals that the pleasure for the lis-
tener actually derives more from aggression than sex. We take aggressive delight in
laughing at the cuckolding of the hapless husband, as well as the stupidity of the wife,
who reveals her unfaithfulness to her husband in such a naive manner, and will likely
soon suffer the consequences of his jealous anger. Again, the cleverness of the logical
processes involved in interpreting the joke enables us to distract our attention from
the fact that we are deriving pleasure from other people's pain and stupidity, an activ-
ity that would normally cause us to feel somewhat guilty.
In summary, for a joke to be effective, there are two important requirements: it
must involve a clever use of jokework, and it must allow for the expression of some
repressed sexual or aggressive impulse. Either of these elements alone may be pleas-
urable, but neither is likely to be viewed as truly funny.
Although Freud believed that most jokes involve this release of sexual or aggres-
sive drives, he tentatively suggested that there may be some non-aggressive and non-
sexual ("non-tendentious" or "innocent") jokes in which the enjoyment is derived only
from clever cognitive processes (jokework) that enable us momentarily to regress to
less logical and rational (i.e., more childish) modes of thinking. However, some
authors such as Grotjahn (1966) and Gruner (1978) have pointed out that Freud was
PSYCHOANALYTIC THEORY
unable to provide any examples of such innocent jokes (a fact that Freud himself
acknowledged). These theorists argued that this is because no such jokes actually exist:
all jokes are tendentious.
Freud's second category of laughter-related phenomena, which was the only one
that he referred to as humor, occurs in stressful or aversive situations in which persons
would normally experience negative emotions such as fear, sadness, or anger, but the
perception of amusing or incongruous elements in the situation provides them with
an altered perspective on it and enables them to avoid experiencing this negative
affect. The pleasure of humor (in this restricted meaning of the word) arises from the
release of energy that would have been associated with this painful emotion but has
now become redundant. For example, the individual who is able to "see the fanny
side of things" despite having recently suffered a serious financial loss would be
demonstrating this kind of humor. This type of humor is especially seen in the ability
to laugh at one's own foibles, weaknesses, and social blunders. Thus, humor referred
specifically to the tension-release function of mirth and laughter, and its use in coping
with stress, as discussed in the previous chapter.
It is important to note that Freud, like most of his contemporaries, drew a sharp
distinction between humor and wit. Humor referred to a benign and sympathetic
amusement at the ironical aspects of the misfortunes of life, whereas wit (which he
identified primarily with canned jokes) was more aggressive and less clearly psycho-
logically healthy. As we saw in the previous chapter, since Freud's time the word humor
has evolved into a broad umbrella term that encompasses all types of laughter-evoking
phenomena, including aggressive teasing, sexual jokes, and slapstick comedy, as well
as irony. This difference in terminology can be very confusing, and it has led many
researchers and theorists to confuse Freud's theory of wit or jokes with his theory of
humor. I will have more to say about this when I discuss the relation between humor
and mental health in Chapter 9.
According to Freud, humor (in this old-fashioned narrow sense) is one of a
number of different types of defense mechanisms that enable us to face difficult situ-
ations without becoming overwhelmed by unpleasant emotion. Indeed, according to
Freud, humor is the "highest of the defense mechanisms," since it enables the indi-
vidual to avoid unpleasant emotions while still maintaining a realistic view of the sit-
uation. To Freud (1928), humor is very beneficial:
Like wit and the comic, humor has in it a liberating element. But it has also something fine and ele-
vating, which is lacking in the other two ways of deriving pleasure from intellectual activity. Obvi-
ously, what is fine about it is the triumph of narcissism, the ego's victorious assertion of its own
invulnerability. It refuses to be hurt by the arrows of reality or to be compelled to suffer. It insists
that it is impervious to wounds dealt by the outside world, in fact, that these are merely occasions
for affording it pleasure.
Whereas jokes and the comic are commonly enjoyed by nearly everyone, Freud (1928,
p. 220) described humor as "a rare and precious gift" which is possessed only by a few
lucky people. Interestingly, Freud (1928, p. 220) saw humor as the action of the
parental superego attempting to comfort and reassure the anxious ego, asserting
THEORIES AND EARLY RESEARCH I
"Look here! This is all this seemingly dangerous world amounts to. Child's play — the
very thing to jest about!" This is a much more positive view of the superego than the
harsh, punitive taskmaster that is typically portrayed in Freudian theory. As we will
see in Chapter 9, Freud's conception of humor (in this narrow sense) is closely related
to contemporary views of humor as a way of coping with stress and regulating
emotions.
Whereas wit and humor are verbal, Freud's third category, the comic, refers to
nonverbal sources of mirth, such as slapstick comedy, circus clowns, and the pompous
person slipping on the banana peel. In such situations, according to Freud, the
observer mobilizes a certain amount of mental or ideational energy in anticipation of
what is expected to happen. When the expected does not occur, this mental energy
becomes redundant and is released in laughter. Freud suggested that the comic
involves delighted laughter at childish behavior in oneself or others, which he
described as "the regained lost laughter of childhood" (Freud, 1960 [1905], p. 224).
Comical situations may also contain some tendentious elements, allowing for the
pleasurable release of libidinal energy. The person slipping on the banana peel is a
good example. The fact that he is pompous and ostentatious makes the scene all the
more amusing because it permits the expression of some aggressive impulses. It would
not be nearly as funny if the mishap occurred to a small child or to a person for whom
we felt some sympathy. Thus, like wit, the comic often contains at least a tinge of
aggression.
Empirical Investigations
A variety of hypotheses were derived from Freudian theory (particularly the
theory of jokes or wit), and these were investigated in a large number of early psy-
chological studies. Kline (1977) listed several hypotheses having to do with individ-
ual differences. For example, based on Freudian theory, individuals finding aggressive
or sexual jokes funniest would be expected to be those whose aggression or sexuality
is normally repressed. Psychopaths should not find jokes amusing, since they have no
need to lift their repression in this way. Witty people should tend to have powerful
unconscious aggressive drives and to be more neurotic than the normal population.
Moreover, highly repressed people should prefer jokes with more complex jokework
rather than "simple" jokes.
In the 1950s, psychologist Jacob Levine and his colleagues published a number
of studies investigating these sorts of hypotheses. Levine and Redlich (1955) presented
an anxiety-reduction theory of humor, in which they reconceptualized Freud's ideas
about the release of psychic energy in terms of relief from anxiety. They suggested
that jokes that are perceived by an individual as being particularly funny touch on
anxiety-arousing themes, such as aggression and sexuality, which are normally
repressed or suppressed. Thus, a joke initially evokes feelings of anxiety due to its
libidinal themes, and these feelings are then suddenly reduced by the punch line. The
pleasure of a joke derives from this sudden reduction in anxiety, and the greater this
reduction, the greater the pleasure and mirth. If the anxiety produced by the joke is
PSYCHOANALYTIC THEORY
too great, however, the punch line will be inadequate for reducing it, and the response
will be one of aversion, disgust, shame, or even horror. On the other hand, if the indi-
vidual experiences no arousal of anxiety with a particular joke, the response will be
one of indifference.
To investigate these hypotheses, Redlich, Levine, and Sohler (1951) developed
the Mirth Response Test as a method of assessing the types of humor that individu-
als prefer and thereby drawing inferences about their basic needs and conflicts. This
test consisted of a series of 36 cartoons that were judged to tap a wide range of aggres-
sive and sexual themes. Research participants were presented with each cartoon indi-
vidually, and their spontaneous verbal and nonverbal responses were noted. Jokes that
elicited mirth and enjoyment were assumed to contain themes relating to the indi-
vidual's underlying needs and conflicts, whereas those that were viewed with indif-
ference presumably contained themes that were irrelevant to the individual. Negative
responses to jokes, particularly those associated with a failure to "get" the joke, were
seen as indicative of powerful and threatening unresolved needs or conflicts in the
individual.
In one typical study, Levine and Abelson (1959) used the Mirth Response Test to
compare hospitalized psychiatric patients with schizophrenia, patients with anxiety
disorders, and normal controls. The cartoons were first rated by a number of psy-
chiatrists for the degree to which they evoked potentially disturbing themes such as
overt aggression and sexuality. Among the psychiatric patients (who presumably had
a greater number of unresolved conflicts and repressed impulses), mirth responses
to the cartoons were strongly negatively related to these clinician ratings of dis-
turbingness, the least disturbing cartoons being viewed as most humorous and enjoy-
able. In contrast, the nonpatient controls showed a curvilinear relationship between
their mirth responses and the disturbingness of the cartoons, preferring those
that were moderately disturbing and disliking those that were either very low or very
high on this dimension. These results were taken to be supportive of psychoanalytic
theory.
Another early humor test based on Freudian theory was the Wit and Humor
Appreciation Test (WHAT) developed by Walter O'Connell (1960). This test was
composed of 30 jokes, 10 of which were judged by a panel of clinical psychologists to
represent hostile wit, 10 nonsense wit, and 10 humor (in the narrow Freudian sense).
Research participants were instructed to rate the degree to which they liked or dis-
liked each joke. In several studies with this test, O'Connell attempted to show that
better adjusted, less hostile individuals are more likely to enjoy humor and nonsense
wit than hostile wit. However, the findings were only partially supportive of these
hypotheses (O'Connell, 1969, 1976).
One theoretical difficulty with this test seems to be that, since Freud identified
jokes with wit, which he conceptualized quite differently from humor, it was incon-
sistent with his theory to attempt to assess humor using jokes. Furthermore, as we
will see in later chapters, the degree to which people use humor in healthy versus
unhealthy ways in their daily lives has been found to be generally unrelated to their
enjoyment of different types of jokes or cartoons. Consequently, joke appreciation
THEORIES AND EARLY RESEARCH I
tests do not seem to be very useful for assessing these mental health-related dimen-
sions of humor; self-report measures developed for this purpose appear to have greater
validity (e.g., R. A. Martin et al., 2003).
A number of early studies examined Freud's hypothesis that the enjoyment of
hostile jokes is related to repressed aggressive drives. Contrary to psychoanalytic
theory, however, most of this research found that aggressive humor is enjoyed most
by individuals who express hostility and aggression openly rather than by those who
suppress or repress it. For example, Byrne (1956) presented a series of cartoons depict-
ing hostile or nonhostile themes to male psychiatric patients who had been rated by
hospital staff as either overtly hostile, covertly hostile (passive-aggressive), or non-
hostile (compliant). Overtly and covertly hostile patients, as compared to nonhostile
ones, rated the hostile cartoons as funnier. Thus, individuals who exhibited hostile
behavior in their interactions with others were more likely to enjoy cartoons that
reflected hostile themes. Byrne argued that these results contradicted Freudian theory
and were more consistent with behavioral learning theory. According to learning
theory, aggressive behavior is learned through positive reinforcement, and aggressive
individuals would therefore be expected to find aggressive humor to be reinforcing
and enjoyable. Similar findings were obtained by Ullmann and Lim (1962). Taking a
somewhat different approach, Epstein and Smith (1956) also found no correlation
between the degree to which subjects repress hostility and their enjoyment of car-
toons containing hostile or aggressive themes.
Other investigators examined the Freudian hypothesis that individuals who
repress their sexual drives should be more likely to enjoy sexual humor. As with the
research on aggressive humor, the results tended to contradict psychoanalytic theory,
indicating instead that subjects who are less sexually inhibited are more likely to enjoy
sexual jokes and cartoons. For example, Ruch and Hehl (1988) found that sexual jokes
and cartoons were rated as significantly funnier by both male and female participants
who had more positive attitudes toward sexuality, greater sexual experience and enjoy-
ment, higher sexual libido and excitement, and lower prudishness (cf. also Prerost,
1983, 1984). Interestingly, more sexually active individuals were found to enjoy all
types of humor, regardless of content, more than did less sexually active individuals.
Thus, contrary to Freudian theory, the expression and enjoyment of sexual activities,
rather than the repression of sexuality, seems to be associated with enjoyment of
humor generally and sexual content humor in particular.
A study by Holmes (1969) bears on the hypothesis that psychopaths will show
less enjoyment of humor because they are less prone to inhibit unacceptable impulses.
Contrary to psychoanalytic predictions, this study found that men with greater psy-
chopathic tendencies, as shown by higher scores on the psychopathic deviate (PD)
scale of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI), were quicker at
understanding cartoons than were less psychopathic men, and enjoyed sexual and
hostile cartoons more than nonsense cartoons. Thus, once again, the expression rather
than the inhibition of impulses seems to be related to the enjoyment of humor, and
particularly humor containing sexual and aggressive themes.
However, Rosenwald (1964) criticized the rationale of these studies, arguing that
overt expression of an impulse such as aggression does not necessarily mean that there
PSYCHOANALYTIC THEORY
are no inhibitions against that impulse. He suggested that enjoyment of a joke does
not simply reflect unconscious conflicts or anxiety associated with the theme of the
joke, but rather the degree to which the individual is able to relax inhibitions or
defenses. If a person rigidifies inhibitions in response to a joke, he or she will not find
it amusing, but if the person is able momentarily to release inhibitory energies, the
joke will be found to be funny. In support of these hypotheses, Rosenwald found that
male high school students with flexible inhibitions against aggression — as measured
by the Thematic Apperception Test (TAT) — enjoyed hostile humor more than did
either those with overly constricted inhibitions or those with impulsivity and a lack
of inhibitions. These findings were taken to be supportive of Freudian theory. Overall,
though, most of the correlational studies provided little support for the hypothesis
that the enjoyment of aggressive and sexual humor is associated with repression of
the corresponding drives.
Other researchers took an experimental approach to test various hypotheses
derived from psychoanalytic theory. Singer, Gollob, and Levine (1967) hypothesized
that, when people's inhibitions regarding the expression of aggression are increased,
this will result in a decreased ability to enjoy aggressive humor, but will not af-
fect their enjoyment of nonaggressive humor. To mobilize research participants'
aggression-related inhibitions, they had a group of subjects study drawings by Goya
depicting extreme brutality and sadism, while control subjects viewed benign Goya
works. All participants then rated the funniness of 12 cartoons, four of which were
considered to be nonsense cartoons, four portraying mild interpersonal aggression,
and four depicting high interpersonal aggression. As predicted, the participants who
had viewed the disturbing art (and in whom inhibitions against aggression had pre-
sumably been mobilized) rated the highly aggressive cartoons as significantly less
funny in comparison to the control subjects, whereas there were no differences
between the two groups in their enjoyment of the nonsense and mildly aggressive car-
toons. These results appeared to provide support for the Freudian view that increased
mobilization of inhibitions concerning aggression will result in decreased enjoyment
of aggressive humor.
As we saw, Freud suggested that the jokework involved in successful aggressive
jokes distracts the listeners so that they are not fully aware of the aggressive content
at which they are laughing. Based on this view, Gollob and Levine (1967) hypothe-
sized that if people focus their attention on the fact that humor expresses aggressive
impulses, their inhibitions will be mobilized and they will then be relatively unable
to enjoy the humor. They had a group of female subjects make ratings of the funni-
ness of a number of cartoons before and after focusing their attention on the cartoon
content by asking them to explain why the cartoons were funny. As predicted, highly
aggressive cartoons were given significantly lower ratings on the post-test than were
low-aggressive or nonsense cartoons, presumably because the act of explaining the
cartoons drew attention to their aggressiveness and thereby circumvented the dis-
tracting effects of the clever jokework. These results were viewed as supportive of
Freudian theory.
If jokes provide an outlet for sexual and aggressive drives, as suggested by psy-
choanalytic theory, then they should be particularly enjoyed when drives associated
THEORIES AND EARLY RESEARCH I
with the relevant themes have previously been activated. Additionally, these jokes
should have a cathartic effect, reducing the levels of previously aroused drives. A
number of experiments were conducted to test these hypotheses. For example,
Dworkin and Efran (1967) aroused feelings of anger (i.e., aggression) in male under-
graduate participants by having an experimenter treat them in a very rude and criti-
cal manner. The participants were then asked to listen to recordings of either hostile
or nonhostile humor or a nonhumorous tape, and to rate these stimuli for funniness.
A separate control group of subjects rated the humor without having been angered
by the experimenter. Mood adjective checklists were completed before and after the
humor rating task.
As predicted, participants who had been angered rated the hostile humor as sig-
nificantly funnier than did those who had not been angered, whereas no difference
was found between the two groups in their ratings of the nonhostile humor. In addi-
tion, exposure to both types of humor led to a significant reduction in self-reported
feelings of hostility and anxiety in the angered subjects, whereas no change in mood
was observed in the angered subjects who listened to the nonhumorous recordings.
Thus, activation of angry feelings led to greater appreciation for hostile (but not non-
hostile) humor, while both hostile and nonhostile humor led to a reduction in angry
feelings. The latter finding was only partially supportive of Freudian theory, since this
theory would predict a greater reduction in anger with the hostile than with the non-
hostile humor. Subsequent attempts to replicate these findings, however, were mixed.
Some studies similarly found increased enjoyment of hostile humor in research par-
ticipants following exposure to a hostility-arousing situation (e.g., Prerost and Brewer,
1977; Strickland, 1959), but these findings were not replicated in others (e.g., Landy
andMettee, 1969; Singer, 1968).
Other experiments examined the effects of humor on aggressive behavior (rather
than just reported feelings and humor ratings) following exposure to a hostility-
arousing situation. Aggressive behavior was assessed in a variety of ways, including
the severity of electric shocks that subjects administered to someone who had previ-
ously insulted them (under the guise of research on the effects of electric shocks on
learning). Unfortunately, these experiments also yielded inconsistent results. In
support of Freudian theory, some showed that previously angered subjects were less
likely to behave aggressively toward the insulting person following exposure to hostile
as opposed to nonhostile humor (e.g., Baron, 1978a; Leak, 1974). Others, however,
found a reduction in aggression following the nonhostile instead of the hostile humor
(e.g., Baron and Ball, 1974). Yet other experiments showed the opposite pattern of
effects, with an increase in aggressive behavior occurring after exposure to hostile
humor (e.g., Baron, 1978b; Berkowitz, 1970; Mueller and Donnerstein, 1983). Thus,
evidence for cathartic effects of hostile humor on aggressive behavior is inconclusive
to say the least.
Other researchers examined the effects of sexual arousal on the enjoyment of
sexual humor. For example, Strickland (1959) had male research participants rate the
funniness of a number of cartoons containing sexual, hostile, or neutral ("nonsense")
themes after they had either been insulted and criticized by the experimenter (hostile
PSYCHOANALYTIC THEORY
group), or shown a series of photographs of nude females (sexual group). A control
group of participants rated the cartoons immediately after being brought into the
experimental situation. The results indicated that, as predicted, participants who had
been in the hostility-arousing situation gave significantly higher funniness ratings for
the hostile cartoons than for the sexual or nonsense cartoons, whereas those who had
been in the sexually-arousing situation gave significantly higher funniness ratings for
the sexual cartoons than for the other two types of cartoons.
However, in a study with a very similar design, Byrne (1961) did not replicate
these findings. Instead, he found that hostile cartoons were rated as most funny by
participants in all three conditions. In another experiment, Lamb (1968) found that
participants exposed to sexually arousing photographs showed greater appreciation
for all types of cartoons (hostile and neutral as well as sexual), in comparison with
those who were not sexually aroused. Thus, as with the aggression research, studies
of the cathartic effects of sexual humor on sexual arousal produced contradictory and
inconclusive results.
Whereas the preceding research investigated hypotheses derived from Freudian
theory by focusing on participants' appreciation or enjoyment of humorous stimuli, a
study conducted by Ofra Nevo and Baruch Nevo (1983) looked at humor production.
Male high school students were presented with a series of drawings depicting one
person behaving in a frustrating way toward another, and were asked to generate
verbal responses that might be given by the recipient of the frustrating behavior. Half
of the participants were instructed to try to make their responses as humorous as pos-
sible, while no mention of humor was made in the instructions to the other half.
Experimenter ratings of the responses revealed that the humorous responses, com-
pared to the nonhumorous ones, contained significantly more aggression and sexual
themes, as predicted by psychoanalytic theory. The relatively high frequency of sexual
content was especially striking in view of the fact that the pictures did not contain
obvious sexual themes. In addition, the authors noted that many of the jokework tech-
niques described by Freud were observed in the humorous responses, including dis-
placement, play on words, absurdity and fantasy, and representation by the opposite.
The authors concluded that the "subjects applied Freud as if they had read him!"
(p. 192). Similar findings were also reported in a more recent study by Avner Ziv and
Orit Gadish (1990) in which male and female participants were asked to generate
either humorous or nonhumorous stories in response to TAT pictures. Once again,
the humorous stories, compared to the nonhumorous ones, contained significantly
more aggressive and sexual elements.
Evaluation
As this brief review of the early research shows, the large number of studies con-
ducted to test hypotheses derived from the psychoanalytic theory of jokes produced
limited and inconsistent supportive evidence. Although there was some evidence that
people find aggressive jokes less funny when their attention is drawn to the aggres-
sive nature of the humor, little consistent support was found for the hypotheses that
THEORIES AND EARLY RESEARCH I
individuals who habitually repress sexual or aggressive drives show greater enjoyment
for jokes containing such themes; that arousal of sexual and aggressive drives leads to
increased enjoyment of drive-related jokes; or that exposure to aggressive or sexual
jokes has a cathartic effect, decreasing drive arousal. On the other hand, some support
for Freudian theory was found in research showing increased aggressive and sexual
themes in participants' responses when they are instructed to generate humor. Apart
from the inconsistency of the research evidence, the "hydraulic model" of psychic
energy on which Freudian theory is built, viewing laughter as a way of "burning off"
excess tension, is not consistent with our modern understanding of the nervous
system. Consequently, the psychoanalytic theory of humor (like Freudian theory in
general) has been largely abandoned by empirical researchers since the 1980s,
although some further theoretical work has appeared in the psychoanalytic literature
(e.g., Sanville, 1999).
It is important to note, however, that most of this early research focused only on
Freud's theory of jokes (or wit) and not his theory of humor (in the old-fashioned
sense). Part of the reason for this was methodological, since almost all the research
made use of jokes and cartoons (which are also essentially a type of joke) as stimuli.
Since Freud's theory of humor does not apply to jokes, these sorts of stimuli could
not be used to test hypotheses about humor. As we will see in Chapter 9, more recent
research evidence for the role of humor in mental health and coping with stress,
although generally not explicitly inspired by Freudian theory, may be viewed as
support for some of Freud's ideas about humor (narrowly defined) as an adaptive
defense mechanism.
It is also worth noting that the concept of defense mechanisms is one psychoan-
alytic idea that continues to be widely accepted by contemporary psychologists who
might not consider themselves to be psychoanalytically oriented. The idea of humor
as a mature or healthy defense mechanism (but without the outdated Freudian notions
of energy release through laughter) continues to have credibility (Vaillant, 2000).
Indeed, the current version of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM-IV;
American Psychiatric Association, 1994), which is used by psychiatrists and clinical
psychologists to diagnose psychological disorders, contains a section on defense
mechanisms that includes humor as an adaptive or mature defense.
A limitation of Freud's theory is that it does not consider the interpersonal context
and social functions of humor, focusing instead on dynamics taking place within the
individual. Thus, jokes were seen by Freud as serving a primarily intrapsychic func-
tion, enabling the individual to express and enjoy libidinal drives that are normally
repressed by one's own conscience. As we will see in later chapters, humor scholars
have recently begun to focus more on the social aspects of humor, noting that jokes
and other types of humor are essentially a form of communication between people.
Sociologist Michael Mulkay (1988) suggested that the function of jokes may have
more to do with the social expression of topics that are considered taboo by the culture
than with the intrapsychic release of drives. He noted that topics like sex and aggres-
sion have great personal relevance to most people, but are considered inappropriate
for discussion in normal discourse. Humor enables people to communicate sexual
SUPERIORITY/DISPARAGEMENT THEORIES
information, attitudes, and emotions in a form that is more socially acceptable because
it implies that the speaker is "only joking" and is therefore not to be taken seriously.
Because the meaning of a humorous communication is inherently ambiguous, people
can get away with saying things in a humorous way that they could not express using
a more serious mode of communication.
Similarly, Eliot Oring (1994) suggested that, in addition to sex and aggression,
humor is often used to communicate a variety of topics with which the culture has
some discomfort. For example, he suggested that contemporary American culture is
uncomfortable with the expression of sentimental feelings like affection, tenderness,
admiration, and sympathy, and humor is therefore often used to convey these sorts of
feelings in an indirect way. Examples of this use of humor include "roasts," in which
friends and coworkers humorously belittle the personality, behaviors, and achieve-
ments of an honored guest, and humorous greeting cards, in which insulting messages
are used to indirectly express feelings of affection (e.g., "I wish I had a nickel for every
time I've thought of you ... I'd buy some gum"). Although the overt message appears
to be negative, the humorous manner in which it is delivered makes it apparent that
the opposite, more affectionate meaning is actually the intended one. Thus, by focus-
ing on the inherently interpersonal nature of humor, some contemporary theorists
and researchers have reconceptualized Freud's original ideas about intrapsychic func-
tions of humor and applied them to an understanding of its social functions.
Although psychoanalytic theory may not provide a completely satisfactory
account of humor (in the broad, modern sense), it did draw attention to certain aspects
that need to be explained in any comprehensive theory. In particular, we note the pre-
dominance of aggressive and sexual themes in most (if not all) jokes, the feelings of
emotional pleasure and enjoyment (i.e., mirth) that are engendered by humor, and
the strong motivation to engage in it. As we will see in later chapters, these aspects
of humor continue to be of great interest to theorists and researchers today.
SUPERIORITY/DISPARAGEMENT THEORIES
As we have seen, Freud viewed aggression as an important aspect of jokes, which
he identified with the old concept of wit. Indeed, there is abundant evidence that much
humor (broadly defined) is based on aggression and hostility. The aggressive basis of
laughter is evident in ancient writings. Koestler (1964) noted that, of 29 references to
laughter in the Old Testament, most are linked with scorn, derision, mockery, or con-
tempt, and only two are "born out of a joyful and merry heart" (p. 53). The aggres-
sion in humor can be blatant or subtle. Herbert Lefcourt (2001) gives some examples
of the more extremely sadistic or heartless forms of humor. For example, Nazi sol-
diers during World War II, particularly the Gestapo, were known to laugh mirthfully
at the panicky behavior of Jews attempting to flee from them. Anthropologist Colin
Turnbull (1972) described how members of a nomadic mountain tribe in Africa,
during a time of starvation and misery, would laugh uproariously at the suffering of
individuals that would normally be expected to arouse sympathy. In one instance, a
THEORIES AND EARLY RESEARCH I
group of people laughed loudly at the spectacle of an elderly blind woman writhing
weakly at the bottom of a canyon after losing her footing on a steep trail and falling
over a cliff.
The aggressive side of humor is also evident in the merciless teasing that chil-
dren often inflict on one another. I remember well a regrettable incident from my
own childhood when an overweight girl in the fourth grade fell to the floor after her
chair broke. The ensuing raucous laughter and teasing from the rest of the class con-
tinued for several days afterwards. As every child knows, being laughed at can be
extremely painful and humiliating. At a milder level, a great many of the jokes that
are so popular in our culture quite obviously involve the disparagement of others,
including members of either sex (but most often women), various national or ethnic
groups, or people of low intelligence. Sociologist Christie Davies (1990a) described
how people of every country and region make jokes about members of a particular
nationality or subculture who are considered to be similar yet different enough from
the cultural mainstream to be objects of ridicule.
Overview of the Theories
As we saw in Chapter 1, a long-standing theoretical approach views aggression
of some sort as the essential characteristic of all humor. In this view, humor is actu-
ally a form of aggression. Theories of this kind have been referred to as superiority,
disparagement, aggression, or degradation theories. This is the oldest approach to
humor, dating at least as far back as the philosophers Plato and Aristotle. Plato
(428-348 B.C.) stated that laughter originates in malice. According to him, we laugh
at what is ridiculous in other people, feeling delight instead of pain when we see even
our friends in misfortune (Plato in Philebus, reprinted in Morreall, 1987). Similarly,
Aristotle (348-322 B.C.) saw comedy as an imitation of people who are worse than the
average and viewed it as a "species of the ugly" (in Poetics, reprinted in Morreall, 1987,
p. 14). According to Aristotle, "people who carry humor to excess are considered
vulgar buffoons. They try to be funny at all costs, and their aim is more to raise a
laugh than to speak with propriety and to avoid giving pain to the butt of their jokes"
(in Nicomachean Ethics, reprinted in Morreall, 1987, p. 15). He evidently did not care
much for it.
The writings of the seventeenth-century British philosopher Thomas Hobbes
(1588-1679) further reinforced the general acceptance of the superiority view for
several centuries. According to Hobbes, "the passion of laughter is nothing else but
sudden glory arising from some sudden conception of some eminency in ourselves,
by comparison with the infirmity of others, or with our own formerly ... It is no
wonder therefore that men take heinously to be laughed at or derided, that is, tri-
umphed over." (in Human Nature, reprinted in Morreall, 1987, p. 20). Thus, humor
is thought to result from a sense of superiority derived from the disparagement of
another person or of one's own past blunders or foolishness. Elements of the superi-
ority view continue to be seen in some theories of humor proposed over the past
century (e.g., Bergson, 1911; Leacock, 1935; Ludovici, 1933; Rapp, 1951).
SUPERIORITY/DISPARAGEMENT THEORIES
The most outspoken contemporary advocate of this approach is Charles Gruner,
a professor of speech communication at the University of Georgia (Gruner, 1978,
1997). Gruner views humor as "playful aggression." It is not "real" aggression, in the
sense that it does not involve physically attacking and injuring people; rather, it is
more like the play fighting of children and young animals. Thus, Gruner emphasizes
the idea that humor is a form of play. In particular, the type of play he has in mind is
a game, competition, or contest, where there are winners and losers. Gruner suggests
that the enjoyment of humor is akin to the jubilant, triumphant feelings one has after
suddenly winning a very close game after a long and difficult struggle. "Successful
humor," stated Gruner, "like enjoying success in sports and games (including the
games of life), must include 'winning ("getting what we want"), and sudden perception
of that winning" (Gruner, 1997, p. 9, emphasis in original).
Gruner based his theory on an evolutionary view in which the propensity for com-
petitiveness and aggressiveness is the main characteristic that enabled humans to
survive and flourish. Following Rapp's (1951) phylogenetic (i.e., evolutionary) theory,
Gruner (1978) suggested that laughter originated in the "roar of triumph" following
a hard-fought battle (typically occurring between males). During the course of a phys-
ical struggle with another person, much emotional and physical energy is built up, as
adrenaline is pumped into the bloodstream. When the fight ends suddenly, the winner
must dispel this excess tension, and he does so through laughter: he "bares his teeth,
pumps his shoulders, and chops up his breath into grunts and moans, with appropri-
ate grimaces" (p. 43). Thus, laughter serves the physiological function of rapidly
restoring homeostasis, as well as the psychological function of signaling victory over
the enemy. (The loser, meanwhile, expels his excess energy by weeping.)
According to Gruner, "the many generations of men who responded to their
sudden victories in violent encounters with roars of triumph, over hundreds of thou-
sands of years, wore a groove, a riverbed, into the collective human unconscious"
(p. 52), and this continues to be the basis of laughter to the present day. This early
precursor of laughter evolved into our modern-day humor. With the evolution of
language in the context of communal living, people were able to begin poking fun
at others with words, rather than relying only on physical aggression. Soon people
could use language to ridicule anyone who appeared inferior, such as those with a
physical or mental defect. Today, this form of humor is evident in slapstick comedy
and practical jokes, laughter at others' clumsiness and verbal mistakes, laughter at
"dumb blond" jokes, and any jokes that make fun of individuals from other ethnic
groups.
Those who disagree with this aggression theory of humor might point to simple
riddles and puns as forms of humor to which it does not seem to apply. These kinds
of humor merely involve a play on words and seem to be completely devoid of aggres-
sion and hostility. However, according to Gruner, riddles and puns have their origins
in ancient "duels of wits" in which people attempted to display their intellectual supe-
riority over others by means of their facility with words. Still today, creating puns
is a way of "beating" others in conversation. This is why people respond to puns
with groans, which are seen as an admission of defeat. The person who constantly
THEORIES AND EARLY RESEARCH I
interrupts the flow of conversation with puns is often perceived by others as disrup-
tive, frustrating, and distracting, and puns are seen as a way of controlling social inter-
actions. The competitive nature of punning is particularly evident in "punning duels,"
in which two people attempt to outdo one another with exchanges of witty wordplay.
Gruner (1997, p. 136) gave the following example:
Bob: The cops arrested a streaker yesterday.
Rob: Could they pin anything on him?
Bob: Naw. The guy claimed he was hauled in on a bum wrap.
Rob: You'd think the case was supported by the bare facts.
Bob: We can probably hear more about the case tonight on the TV nudecast.
Rob: Tomorrow's nudespaper might have more details.
Puns in everyday conversation may be a way of "defeating" the listener, but
canned jokes in which the punch line is based on a pun are seen as a way of enabling
the listener to share feelings of mastery and superiority along with the joke-teller. The
ability to "get the joke" gives the listener a feeling of superiority and victory, pre-
sumably over hypothetical others who might not be able to understand it, perhaps
due to their lower intelligence. Thus, according to Gruner, all jokes, no matter how
seemingly innocent, contain a contest, a winner, and a loser.
Gruner (1997) analyzed a large number of examples of different types of jokes,
demonstrating how each of them may be viewed as an expression of playful aggres-
sion. "To understand a piece of humorous material," stated Gruner (1978, p. 14), "it
is necessary only to find out who is ridiculed, how, and why." Thus, he finds aggres-
sion in jokes about death, destruction, or disaster; "sick" jokes (such as "dead baby"
jokes and those that followed the Challenger space shuttle disaster); slapstick comedy
and children's television cartoons; practical jokes; ethnic and sexist jokes; and so on.
Whereas Freud saw sexuality as a possible joke mechanism that can operate without
any aggression, Gruner argued forcefully that all sexual, sexist, and scatological
("toilet") humor is based on aggression. According to Gruner (1997, p. 109), "'dirty'
jokes differ from 'clean' jokes only in subject matter and language, not in form or
technique; both 'types' of jokes follow the formula of a contest, resulting in both a
winner and a loser." Gruner claimed that he has never encountered a joke or other
laughter-provoking event that cannot be explained by application of his theory, and
at the end of his 1997 book he challenged the reader to try to find one.
What about all the "innocent" or "nonsense" jokes and cartoons that were used
in much of the psychoanalytically inspired research, reviewed earlier, comparing the
effects of hostile versus nonhostile humor? Although he acknowledged that the
aggression in humor can sometimes be quite muted and subtle, Gruner (1997) argued
forcefully that even the most seemingly innocuous jokes contain some element of
aggression. Here his analyses sometimes seem a little forced. For example, he dis-
cussed a published cartoon in which "two tipplers coming home from a wild night on
the town are gaily staggering up and down walls, as well as back and forth across the
sidewalk and street" (p. 162). Although this cartoon seems to be playing in a purely
innocent way with incongruity and absurdity, Gruner interpreted it as ridiculing
SUPERIORITY/DISPARAGEMENT THEORIES
drunkenness: drunks are so oblivious to reality that they don't realize that defying
gravity is impossible and don't stop to think about the dangers involved. In another
example, a cartoon shows a plumber plugging the hole in a water pipe with his finger,
as water pours out his ear. Again, this seems to be merely an innocent and whimsical
exercise in absurdity, but Gruner suggested that the cartoon causes the viewer to laugh
at the damage being done to the plumber's brain cells by the water going through his
head. Although many of Gruner's analyses seem quite convincing about the aggres-
sive basis of humor, some examples such as these seem rather contrived.
What about self-deprecatory humor? How can laughing at oneself be explained
in terms of superiority theory? Like Hobbes, Gruner responds that we can laugh at
our own past stupidities and failings, feeling superiority over the person we once were
in the past. Furthermore, even in the present, one part of ourselves can laugh at
another part. For example, when I am feeling lazy, I can laugh at the part of me that
is overly ambitious, and when I am in an ambitious mood I can laugh at my lazy self.
We all have multiple roles, mood states, and conflicting personality characteristics,
and a sense of humor is what keeps these many varied aspects of ourselves in balance.
People with no sense of humor are people who are rigid and unidimensional, unable
to see anything funny about themselves or their beliefs. Thus, the disparagement at
the root of humor can be directed at oneself in a healthy manner.
Implications of Superiority/Disparagement Theories
As we saw in Chapter 1, the extremely positive view of humor held by most people
today has made the superiority theory very unpopular because of the negative way it
seems to portray humor. Although they might acknowledge that some humor is occa-
sionally aggressive, hostile, and even cruel, most people today wish to believe that
most humor (perhaps particularly their own!) is free of aggression, nonhostile, sym-
pathetic, friendly, and healthy. Psychotherapists, educators, and business consultants
who promote humor for its presumed beneficial qualities (which I will discuss in
Chapter 1 1) often draw a distinction between "laughing at" and "laughing with." They
may espouse "political correctness" views, regarding ethnic, racist, and sexist humor,
like smoking in restaurants, as offensive and inappropriate in polite society. Instead,
they seek to promote the use of more affirming and caring types of humor. However,
Gruner argues that such people are simply deluding themselves, denying the reality
of the true source of pleasure underlying their enjoyment of humor. If we try to
eliminate aggression from humor, according to Gruner, we will eliminate humor
altogether.
At the same time, Gruner denies that this view of humor actually paints a nega-
tive picture of human nature. He emphasizes that the aggression involved in humor
is just play, a game that should not be taken seriously and is not intended to inflict
actual harm. Individuals who tell ethnic jokes do not necessarily believe the stereo-
types conveyed in their jokes. Gruner (1997) stated that "a stereotype is merely a very
handy kind of shorthand to provide the essential framework for understanding the
content of a joke" (p. 99). Of course, some people who are truly hostile, racist, sexist,
THEORIES AND EARLY RESEARCH I
or anti-Semitic might use such jokes as a way of expressing their hostility. But such
people will likely express their attitudes in more direct and openly hostile ways as well.
This does not mean that all people who enjoy such jokes are racist or sexist. A similar
view is expressed by sociologist Christie Davies, who has argued, for example, that
jokes making ran of "Jewish American princesses" ( JAPs) are not really based on anti-
Semitism, but are actually affirming of the qualities of Jewish culture (C. Davies,
1990b). Although Davies rejected the superiority/aggression theory of humor because
it seems to confuse the playful aggression of humor with "real-world" aggression
(C. Davies, 1990a, p. 326), Gruner argued that these objections reveal a misunder-
standing of his theory.
The more positive perspective on superiority/disparagement theories espoused
by Gruner (as opposed to the negative views held by more traditional superiority the-
orists) has also allowed some authors to emphasize the value of humor for self-esteem,
feelings of competence, and personal well-being generally. Rather than focusing on
the hostile, sarcastic, and derisive aspects of humor, these views emphasize the posi-
tive feelings of well-being and efficacy, and the sense of liberation and freedom from
threat experienced when one is able to poke ran at other people or situations that
would normally be viewed as threatening or constrictive. As Holland (1982, p. 45)
pointed out, "we can state the disproportion the other way around, calling the purpose
of laughter not so much a glorifying of the self as a minimizing of the distresses men-
acing the self." Similarly, Kallen (1968, p. 59) wrote, "I laugh at that which has endan-
gered or degraded or has fought to suppress, enslave, or destroy what I cherish and
has failed. My laughter signalizes its failure and my own liberation."
Similar views have been expressed by authors taking an existential approach to
humor, who emphasize that it provides one with a sense of liberation or freedom from
the constraints of life. For example, Knox (1951, p. 543) defined humor as "playful
chaos in a serious world," and stated that "humor is a species of liberation, and it is
the liberation that comes to us as we experience the singular delight of beholding
chaos that is playful and make-believe in a world that is serious and coercive" (p. 541).
Similarly, Mindess (1971) noted that our social roles require us to suppress and deny
many of our impulses and desires and to conform to our surroundings and the expec-
tations placed on us by others. Although these constraints and routines are necessary
for survival in our group-based existence, they also lead to feelings of self-alienation
and loss of spontaneity and authenticity. Humor, according to Mindess, is a means of
coping with this paradox, enabling one to gain a sense of freedom, mastery, and self-
respect while continuing to live within the social constraints of human life. In humor
we can temporarily break all the rules, playing with reality in a way that denies the
normal physical and social constraints and ignores the usual consequences of behav-
ior (see also Svebak, 1974b, for a similar view).
This coping aspect of aggressive humor is also evident in the "gallows humor"
described by Obrdlik (1942) as a form of joking used by people in oppressive regimes,
such as Nazi-occupied nations during World War II. The term gallows humor comes
from Freud's (1960 [1905]) description of condemned prisoners making lighthearted
jokes on their way to the gallows (e.g., the prisoner who, when offered a last cigarette
SUPERIORITY/DISPARAGEMENT THEORIES
before his execution, says, "No thanks, I'm trying to quit"). It has come to be used to
refer to aggressive forms of humor with a grotesque or macabre character ("black
humor") used as a means of maintaining one's sanity in seemingly hopeless or
extremely harrowing situations. By poking fun at the ineptness and stupidity of
oppressors, gallows humor can be a subversive activity that allows one to gain a sense
of freedom from their power, a refusal to be completely subjugated by them, despite
their apparent domination. Such forms of humor were also very popular in the former
Soviet Union and Eastern European countries during the Communist era (Raskin,
1985).
Along with Freud's concept of humor (in the narrow sense) as a defense mecha-
nism, the superiority approach provides a basis for contemporary views of humor as
a way of coping with stress in daily life (which I will discuss in Chapter 9). As a defense
mechanism (a la Freud), humor enables us to protect ourselves from painful emotions
associated with adverse circumstances. As a way of asserting our superiority (a la
Gruner), humor is a way of refusing to be overcome by the people and situations,
large and small, which threaten our well-being. It must be recognized, though, that
while such aggressive uses of humor in coping may make us feel better, when directed
at spouses, close friends, and family members, they can have a negative effect on the
relationship.
Humor also enables us to avoid becoming too emotionally involved in the dis-
tress and problems of others. McDougall (1903, 1922) viewed humor as a sort of
"emotional anesthesia," that enables us to avoid feeling too much sympathy for others,
which might otherwise overwhelm us. He believed that humor and laughter evolved
in humans as an antidote to sympathy, a protective reaction that shields us from the
depressive influence of other people. Thus, when we make a joke about our own prob-
lems or those of another person, we are separating ourselves, at least momentarily,
from the emotional pain involved.
Empirical Investigations
As we saw in the earlier section on psychoanalytic theory, a great deal of research
has been devoted to the study of aggression and hostility in humor. Although much
of this research was inspired by Freudian theory, it can also be viewed as relevant to
superiority/disparagement theories, since both approaches share the idea of aggres-
sion as a motive in humor. The theory that all humor is based on aggression leads to
the prediction that there will be a positive correlation between the amount of hostil-
ity present in a joke and its perceived funniness. Gruner (1997) stated that "usually,
everything else being equal, the more hostile the humor, the funnier" (p. 110). Some
research has provided support for this hypothesis. McCauley and associates (1983)
conducted a series of six studies in which they had separate groups of participants rate
the aggressiveness and the funniness of different sets of cartoons taken from maga-
zines. In each of these studies, significant positive correlations were found between
the median humor and aggressiveness ratings across the sets of cartoons (r = .49 to
.90), indicating that the more aggressive a cartoon, the funnier it was perceived to be.
THEORIES AND EARLY RESEARCH I
These results were found with children and adults, individuals of high and low socioe-
conomic status, and native- and foreign-born participants. Singer, Gollob, and Levine
(1967) and Epstein and Smith (1956) also found evidence that hostile cartoons are
enjoyed more than nonhostile cartoons.
However, some other research suggests that a moderate amount of hostility or
aggression in humor is funnier than either too little or too much. Zillmann and Bryant
(1974) found that humorous "squelches" given in response to an aggressor were per-
ceived as most funny when they involved a moderate and equitable amount of retal-
iation rather than an over- or under-retaliation. Similarly, Zillmann, Bryant, and
Cantor (1974) found that, when research participants were shown political cartoons
in which mild, moderate, or extreme levels of disparagement were depicted against
presidential candidates, the cartoons showing mild attacks on a rejected candidate
were rated as most funny. Bryant (1977) also found that a moderate amount of hos-
tility expressed in put-down humor was rated funnier than either mild or intense hos-
tility, even when the equitableness of the "squelch" was controlled. Although they
suggest a curvilinear (inverted- U) rather than a linear relationship between hostility
and funniness, these findings could perhaps still be taken as supportive of Gruner's
theory of humor as "playful aggression," since more extreme forms of aggression
might no longer be perceived as playful and would therefore no longer be expected
to be funny.
There is also some evidence that the funniness of disparagement humor arises
more from the perceived pain experienced by the victim than from the hostility dis-
played by the protagonist. In three separate studies, Deckers and Carr (1986) obtained
ratings of funniness, the amount of hostility/aggression displayed by the protagonist,
and the amount of pain experienced by the victim in a wide variety of cartoons.
Although the hostility and pain ratings were highly correlated, funniness ratings were
significantly correlated with pain ratings but not with hostility ratings. Funniness
ratings increased as pain ratings increased up to a point, and then leveled off as pain
increased further. Thus, moderate pain experienced by the victim or target of a joke
is perceived as funnier than no pain, but extreme pain is no more (or less) funny than
moderate pain. Thus, consistent with superiority/disparagement theory, the enjoy-
ment of humor seems to arise from seeing someone suffer (in an unreal, playful
context). A similar correlation between funniness and pain ratings was found by
Wicker et al. (1981).
Although this research seems to support the aggression view of humor, Willibald
Ruch has questioned this theory on the basis of his extensive investigations involving
factor analyses of jokes and cartoons (e.g., Ruch and Hehl, 1998). In a series of studies
(which will be described in more detail in Chapter 7), Ruch and his colleagues factor
analyzed subjects' positive and negative responses to a wide range of humor stimuli
with participants from different age groups, socioeconomic backgrounds, and nation-
alities. These researchers consistently found three stable factors, two of which related
to structural aspects of the humor (labeled incongruity-resolution and nonsense) and
only one content factor (sexual themes). Although they included a number of jokes
and cartoons containing hostile and aggressive themes in their studies, these did not
SUPERIORITY/DISPARAGEMENT THEORIES
form a separate factor, but instead loaded on one or the other of the two structural
factors, suggesting that hostility is not a very salient dimension in people's responses
to humor. In defense of his theory, Gruner might perhaps argue that, since all humor
is by definition based on aggression, it is not surprising that there is not a separate
factor for aggression. However, these factor analytic findings do raise questions about
the importance of aggression and hostility in humor. Incidentally, these findings also
cast some doubt on the validity of the numerous past studies (discussed earlier) that
have investigated participants' responses to jokes and cartoons that were categorized
by the researchers themselves into hostile and nonhostile types.
Another prediction of superiority/disparagement theory would seem to be that
people with more hostile and aggressive personality traits will enjoy all kinds of humor
(not just hostile humor) more than do less aggressive people. However, several studies
have found no significant correlations between a variety of trait measures of aggres-
siveness and appreciation for various types of humor (Ruch and Hehl, 1998). Other
studies, as we have already seen, have found that aggressive people are more likely to
enjoy more hostile forms of humor (Donn Byrne, 1956; Ullmann and Lim, 1962).
Thus, while aggressiveness as a personality trait may be related to enjoyment of
aggressive forms of humor, it does not appear to be related to enjoyment of humor
in general, contrary to the predictions of superiority theory.
In addition to these studies that bear on the relationship between funniness and
aggressiveness in humor, a considerable amount of social psychological research has
been conducted on disparagement or "put-down" humor, as a particular category of
humor. Indeed, superiority/disparagement theories enjoyed a period of considerable
popularity among social psychologists during the 1960s and 1970s. This was partic-
ularly evident in the research programs of Dolf Zillmann and his colleagues at Indiana
University (Zillmann and Cantor, 1976) and Lawrence La Fave and his colleagues at
the University of Windsor, Canada (La Fave, 1972). Much of this research focused
on the way the funniness of disparagement humor is determined by the social rela-
tionships among the protagonists, the victims, and the audience. In general, these
researchers hypothesized that people will find humor in the misfortunes of those
toward whom they have some antipathy. In one of the earliest experiments on humor,
Wolff et al. (1934) presented a series of anti-Jewish jokes to both Jewish and non-
Jewish participants. Not surprisingly, they found that the Jewish participants, as com-
pared to the non-Jews, displayed less appreciation for these jokes. In addition, men
showed more appreciation for jokes ridiculing women than women did, while women
exceeded men in their appreciation of jokes ridiculing men.
However, mere membership in a particular racial or religious group may not be
sufficient for predicting a person's response to jokes about that group. Middleton
(1959) found that, although Black participants exceeded Whites in their appreciation
of jokes disparaging Whites, Blacks and Whites did not differ in their appreciation of
anti-Black jokes. He speculated that this was due to the fact that the Blacks in his
sample, who were predominantly middle-class, may not have identified themselves
with the stereotyped lower-class Blacks portrayed in the jokes. Similarly, Cantor
(1976) found that both female and male college students showed greater appreciation
THEORIES AND EARLY RESEARCH I
for disparagement humor in which a male had the last laugh at a female's expense, as
compared to jokes in which a female disparaged a male. Furthermore, subjects of both
sexes preferred disparaging jokes in which women (rather than men) were the victims
of both men and women. These findings suggest a possible identification of women
with male aggressors in this era before women's liberation had made an impact on the
culture.
In view of these sorts of findings, Zillmann and Cantor (1976) emphasized the
importance of assessing individuals' attitudes toward a target group, rather than
relying merely on their group membership. They proposed a "dispositional model of
humor," in which they posited that individuals' disposition toward other people or
objects varies along a continuum from extreme positive affect through indifference to
extreme negative affect. They hypothesized that "humor appreciation varies inversely
with the favorableness of the disposition toward the agent or entity being disparaged,
and varies directly with the favorableness of the disposition toward the agent or entity
disparaging it" (p. 100). According to these authors, an individual's disposition toward
the target of a joke is not necessarily a permanent trait, but may be a temporary
attitude evoked by the situation, including features of the joke itself. Importantly,
though, they emphasized that humor always involves disparagement in some form:
"something malicious and potentially harmful must happen, or at least, the inferior-
ity of someone or something must be implied, before a humor response can occur"
(p. 101).
Zillmann and Cantor (1972) found evidence in support of this theory in a study
in which a group of college students and a group of middle-aged business and pro-
fessional people were presented jokes involving people in superior-subordinate rela-
tionships (father-son, employer-employee, etc.). As predicted, students gave higher
ratings of funniness to the jokes in which the subordinate disparaged the superior than
to those in which the superior disparaged the subordinate, whereas the ratings of pro-
fessionals revealed the opposite pattern (see also Zillmann and Bryant, 1980).
Similar research by Lawrence La Fave and his colleagues (reviewed by La Fave,
Haddad, and Maesen, 1976) employed the concept of the "identification class," which
is either a positive or negative attitude-belief system regarding a given class or cate-
gory of persons. These authors also emphasized the importance of self-esteem in
humor appreciation. Jokes that enhance a positively valued identification class or dis-
parage a negatively valued identification class were assumed to increase the individ-
ual's self-esteem and lead to greater mirth and enjoyment. La Fave, Haddad, and
Maesen (1976) reviewed a series of five studies that provided general support for their
theory. Each of these studies examined humor appreciation responses of research par-
ticipants holding opposing views on different social issues, such as religious beliefs,
women's liberation, and Canadian-American relations. The subjects were asked to rate
the funniness of jokes in which individuals identified with one or the other of these
opposing views were either the protagonist or the target of disparagement. As pre-
dicted, participants rated the jokes as funnier when the protagonist was a member of
a positively valued identification class and the target was a member of a negatively
valued identification class.
SUPERIORITY/DISPARAGEMENT THEORIES
Although the dispositional theory of humor suggests that humor results from the
demeaning or humiliation of someone that we dislike, Zillmann and Bryant (1980)
pointed out that there are normally strong social proscriptions against displaying
amusement and pleasure at the misfortunes of others, even those we dislike. Drawing
from Freud's idea that nontendentious elements of a joke (the jokework) serve as a
distraction from the tendentious (aggressive or sexual) elements, these authors sug-
gested a "misattribution theory" of disparagement humor. According to this theory,
we can permit ourselves to laugh and display amusement at the debasement or dis-
comfiture of someone for whom we feel antipathy if there are incongruous or pecu-
liar aspects of the situation to which we can (mis)attribute our amusement. "If, for
example, we witness our neighbor backing his brand-new car into his mailbox, and a
negative disposition predisposes us to enjoy this and makes us burst out in laughter,
we can always tell ourselves that we laughed because of the peculiar way in which the
mailbox was deformed, the peculiar expression on the neighbor's face, the peculiar
squeaking noise of the impact, or a dozen other peculiar things" (Zillmann and Bryant,
1980, p. 150).
Zillmann and Bryant tested this theory in an experiment in which participants
were first either treated rudely or in a normal manner by a female experimenter to
establish either a negative or neutral affective disposition toward her. The subjects
then witnessed her in one of three conditions: (1) a mishap condition with humorous
cues, in which the experimenter accidentally spilled a hot cup of tea on herself
when a jack-in-the-box suddenly popped out of a box; (2) a mishap condition without
humorous cues, in which she spilled hot tea on herself but the jack-in-the-box
remained closed; or (3) a no-mishap condition with humorous cues, in which the
jack-in-the-box popped up but she did not spill her tea. The dependent variable was
the amount of mirth (smiling and laughter) displayed by the subjects following this
event.
The results were consistent with the predictions from misattribution theory. The
subjects who had a negative disposition toward the experimenter, and who witnessed
the mishap along with the humor cues, smiled and laughed much more than did the
subjects in all the other conditions. Thus, the presence of innocuous humor cues
seems to have a disinhibiting effect that intensifies mirth in response to seeing
resented others suffer misfortunes. A similar process presumably occurs in aggressive
jokes in which one can misattribute one's amusement to humorous elements such as
incongruity and clever wordplay while enjoying the disparagement of someone toward
whom one has a negative disposition. These findings are consistent with Freud's ideas
about the jokework fooling the superego and thereby allowing libidinal pleasure to
be enjoyed, but the misattribution account provides a more cognitive explanation in
place of Freud's generally outmoded psychoanalytic concepts.
Evaluation
There seems to be little doubt that aggressive elements play a role in many
jokes and other forms of humor. There is considerable evidence that the playfully
THEORIES AND EARLY RESEARCH I
aggressive elements in jokes and the perception of pain in others (within a nonseri-
ous, playful context) contribute to the funniness of the humor. There is also evidence
that humorous cues in the situation have a disinhibiting effect, enabling one to mis-
attribute one's mirth in response to the misfortunes experienced by disliked others.
The research on disparagement humor by Zillmann and La Fave and their colleagues
explored in some detail the parameters influencing the degree to which people are
amused by humorous put-downs. However, there is little evidence supporting the view
held by superiority/disparagement theorists that all humor involves some form of
aggression and that hostile people enjoy all types of humor more than do nonhostile
people.
There are also several problems with Gruner's (1978, 1997) version of
superiority/disparagement theory. First, the evolutionary theory that he presents is
essentially an outmoded Lamarkian view. The idea that laughter and humor have sur-
vived in humans because they were frequently used by our ancestors does not explain
their adaptive value, that is, the ways in which humor and laughter provide an advan-
tage to individuals in the struggle to survive and produce offspring. This is not
an insurmountable problem, however, as compatible theories could be devised that
would be more consistent with contemporary evolutionary thinking. For example,
Alexander (1986) proposed an evolutionary theory of humor that is essentially a
superiority/disparagement view, making use of concepts such as ostracism and indi-
rect reciprocity to account for the survival value of humor and laughter (evolutionary
theories of humor will be discussed in more detail in Chapter 6). Another problem
with Gruner's theory is that, like Freud, he proposes an outdated tension-release
model of laughter. However, this is not essential to his theory.
Apart from these theoretical problems, comparative animal research does not
support Gruner's view that laughter evolved in the context of aggression. Ethological
studies of the silent bared-teeth display and the relaxed open-mouth (play face) display
in apes, which are viewed as primate homologues of human smiling and laughter,
respectively, reveal that these facial displays occur exclusively in the context of friendly
social and play activities, and not in the context of aggression (van Hooff, 1972). I will
discuss this research in more detail in Chapter 6.
A major problem with Gruner's theory is that it is essentially unfalsifiable and
therefore cannot be tested empirically. Gruner claims that his theory could be falsi-
fied by finding just one example of humor that cannot be shown to be based on aggres-
sion. However, since Gruner sets himself up as the judge of whether or not a given
example of humor fits his theory, it seems highly unlikely that a joke will be found
that does not pass the test. No matter how dubious the evidence may appear to every-
one else, Gruner always seems to be able to satisfy himself that he can identify the
aggression in even the most seemingly innocuous examples of humor. Even if a joke
involves nothing more than a clever play on words, Gruner can argue that this conveys
the feelings of superiority of the person who came up with the cleverness.
Indeed, one suspects that Gruner could find aggression not just in all humor, but
in all human activity. It appears that, to Gruner, humans are fundamentally aggres-
CONCLUSION
sive, in his broad sense of the word. Thus, he has defined aggression so broadly that
his theory seems to account for all human activity and therefore fails to explain the
uniqueness of humor. Furthermore, by lumping all humor into the single category of
aggression, Gruner ignores the many other ways in which different types of humor
might be distinguished from one another, which might be of theoretical and practi-
cal importance.
Consistent with favorable views of humor in contemporary culture as a whole,
the extreme view that all humor involves aggression has generally fallen into disfavor
among humor researchers. Superiority theories have largely been replaced by cogni-
tive incongruity theories, which will be discussed in the next chapter. In addition,
recent decades have seen a resurgence of views of humor and laughter as a source of
psychological and physical health, and a growing interest in applications of humor in
psychotherapy, health care, education, and the workplace. The view of humor as a
form of aggression (albeit playful aggression), having its roots in derision and dispar-
agement, seems to many to be incompatible with benign views of humor as a pathway
to health. However, as I have pointed out, the superiority view can actually provide a
theoretical basis for conceptualizing humor as a way of coping with stress and adver-
sity. If humor is a way of playfully asserting a sense of victory over the people and sit-
uations that threaten us, mastery over our oppressors, and liberation from life's
constraints, then it is not difficult to see how it can be an important way of main-
taining our self-esteem and mental sanity in the face of adversity. Thus, the superi-
ority theory may actually be more compatible with views of humor as coping than is
often recognized.
In summary, although an extreme view of humor as aggression is generally
rejected today, most researchers agree that humor can often be used to express aggres-
sion. Recent research on teasing (discussed in Chapters 5 and 8) exemplifies the con-
tinuing interest in aggressive aspects of humor (Keltner, Young, Heerey, Oemig, and
Monarch, 1998; Kowalski, Howerton, and McKenzie, 2001). This research also high-
lights the paradox that humor can be both aggressive and prosocial at the same time,
a theme that is central to the superiority theory.
CONCLUSION
In this chapter, I have begun my discussion of the major humor theories and
my review of the early empirical research by focusing on psychoanalytic and
superiority/disparagement theories, two broad theoretical approaches that were very
influential in previous decades. Both of these approaches generated a good deal of
interesting research, contributing substantially to our knowledge of the psychology
of humor. Although they are not as prominent today, these two approaches call atten-
tion to a number of questions about humor that continue to be the focus of much
research and theoretical work: why so much humor seems to be based on sexuality
and/or aggression; why humor gives us so much pleasure and why we are so
THEORIES AND EARLY RESEARCH I
motivated to engage in it; the role of humor in coping with stress; and the functions
of humor in interpersonal interactions. We will return to these themes repeatedly
throughout this book. In the next chapter, I will explore conceptual and early empir-
ical contributions from three other broad theoretical approaches that have strongly
influenced humor research, namely arousal, incongruity, and reversal theories.
CHAPTER
Theories and Early Research II:
Arousal, Incongruity, and
Reversal Theories
In the previous chapter we examined psy-
choanalytic and superiority theories of humor. Both emphasize emotional aspects of
humor, seeking to account for its pleasurable nature by focusing on ways it allows us
to express strong emotions (i.e., sexuality and aggression) in a playful way. Although
these theories are not very popular today, they introduced themes that continue to be
of theoretical and empirical importance.
In this chapter, I will discuss three additional theoretical approaches: (1) arousal
theories, which focus on the role of psychological and physiological arousal in humor;
(2) incongruity theories, which emphasize the cognitive aspects; and (3) reversal
theory, which views humor as a form of mental play. Although there are many over-
lapping ideas in these different approaches, each emphasizes particular aspects that
are seen as central to humor. By combining insights and findings from all of these
approaches, along with those we discussed in the last chapter, we gain a more com-
prehensive understanding of the multifaceted phenomenon of humor.
AROUSAL THEORIES
Overview of the Theories
As we saw in the previous chapter, both Freudian and superiority theories (at least
the version advanced by Gruner, 1997) hypothesized that the function of laughter
57
THEORIES AND EARLY RESEARCH II
is to dissipate excess physiological energy. This energy-release theory of laughter
can be traced to the ideas of nineteenth-century writer Herbert Spencer (1860).
Spencer was strongly influenced by the then-popular "hydraulic" theory of nervous
energy (modeled after the steam engine) in which energy is thought to build up in
our bodies and must be released through muscular movement. According to Spencer,
the respiratory and muscular action of laughter is a specialized way for the body to
release excess nervous energy, much like a safety valve on a steam engine. Needless
to say, this view is inconsistent with our current understanding of the nervous
system.
Other theorists, both before and after Spencer, have conceptualized humor more
generally as a way of relieving built-up psychological tension or strain. For example,
Immanuel Kant (1724—1804) stated that "laughter is an affection arising from the
sudden transformation of a strained expectation into nothing" (in Critique of Judg-
ment, reprinted in Morreall, 1987, p. 47). Writing early in the twentieth century,
Gregory (1924) viewed relief as the common factor in all forms of humor. According
to Gregory, the relief that leads to laughter can arise from many sources, including
the successful outcome of a struggle or the sudden perception of the weakness of an
opponent (as in Gruner's theory), or when one builds up tension in anticipation of a
difficult task and it turns out to be much less demanding than expected. It can also
be relief from pain or fear, or from socially imposed constraints on behavior or
language.
Tension-relief theories focus on the role of psychological and physiological
arousal in the humor process. A more modern arousal-related theory of humor was
that of Daniel Berlyne at the University of Toronto (Berlyne, 1960, 1969, 1972).
Berlyne was interested in psychological aspects of aesthetic experiences in general,
including the appreciation of art and the enjoyment of play, as well as humor. He
focused particularly on various stimulus properties, which he referred to as collative
variables, that make a stimulus such as a work of art, music, or literature aesthetically
pleasing. These included such properties as novelty, level of surprise, complexity,
change, ambiguity, incongruity, and redundancy. They were called collative variables
because they require the individual to perceive various elements of a stimulus together
in order to compare and contrast them. According to Berlyne, jokes and humorous
events also contain collative variables, such as surprise, incongruity, ambiguity, and so
on. Berlyne (1960) reviewed psychophysiological research showing that collative vari-
ables strongly attract our attention, because we find them interesting and unusual, and
they are associated with increases in arousal in the brain and autonomic nervous
system.
In his theory of humor, Berlyne (1972) rejected Spencer's outdated notion that
laughter derives from a release of pent-up energy. Instead, he based his theory on the
well-known concept of an inverted- U relationship between physiological arousal and
subjective pleasure (Hebb, 1955). According to this view, the greatest pleasure is asso-
ciated with a moderate amount of arousal, whereas too little or too much arousal is
unpleasant. Berlyne postulated two arousal-related mechanisms in humor, which he
called the arousal boost and arousal jag mechanisms. The arousal boost mechanism oper-
AROUSAL THEORIES
ates during the telling of a joke or perception of a humorous situation, when arousal
is elevated by means of the collative variables in the stimulus. This increase in arousal
up to an optimal level is experienced as pleasurable.
The arousal jag mechanism takes over when arousal has been elevated beyond the
optimal level and has therefore begun to be aversive. The joke punch line is a sudden
resolution of the arousing properties of the joke, causing the arousal level to be
reduced very quickly to a pleasurable level once again. This sudden reduction of
arousal from an aversive to a pleasurable level adds to the enjoyment of the joke. The
subjective pleasure associated with both the arousal boost and the arousal jag is
expressed by laughter. Thus, rather than viewing laughter as a method of releasing
excess arousal, Berlyne saw it as an expression of the pleasure resulting from changes
in arousal to an optimal level (not too high and not too low). Although similar
processes occur in the appreciation of art and in play, Berlyne suggested that humor
is distinguished from these other types of aesthetic experience by the brief time scale
on which the arousal changes occur, the cues precluding seriousness that accompany
it, and the extreme bizarreness of the collative variables involved.
Empirical Investigations
Arousal theories of humor received a considerable amount of research attention
during the 1960s and 1970s, a period when there was great interest in the role of
arousal in emotions generally. The focus of much of this research was therefore on
the emotional component of humor, which I refer to as mirth. In a well-known exper-
iment, Schachter and Wheeler (1962) manipulated the degree of sympathetic nervous
system activation in research participants by injecting them with either epinephrine
(which increases arousal of the sympathetic nervous system), chlorpromazine (which
decreases sympathetic arousal), or a placebo saline solution. The participants were
then exposed to a slapstick comedy film. Those who had been injected with epi-
nephrine showed greater amusement (smiling and laughter) in response to the film
and rated it as funnier, as compared to those in the placebo group, who in turn showed
greater amusement and higher funniness ratings than did those in the chlorpromazine
group. Thus, higher levels of autonomic arousal, even when produced by a drug,
resulted in greater expressions of mirth and perceptions of amusement in response to
a humorous stimulus.
These results were interpreted as providing support for the view that emotions
involve a combination of autonomic arousal (which determines the intensity of the
emotion) and cognitive appraisal (which determines its quality or valence). Thus, the
amount of mirth elicited by a joke or humorous experience seems to be a function of
both the cognitive appraisal or evaluation of the amusing qualities of the humor
stimulus and the physiological arousal present at the time. Interestingly, although this
physiological arousal may be activated by elements of the joke itself, it may also arise
from factors separate from the joke, such as the ingestion of an arousing drug. Sub-
sequent research (Gavanski, 1986) has shown that smiling and laughter (the facial and
vocal expressions of the emotion of mirth) are more strongly associated with the
THEORIES AND EARLY RESEARCH II
emotional enjoyment of humor (humor appreciation), whereas funniness ratings are
related more to the cognitive evaluation component (humor comprehension).
In addition to research on the effects of arousal on the positive emotional response
to humor, a number of studies were conducted to investigate Berlyne's hypotheses
that humorous stimuli themselves produce changes in autonomic arousal and that the
perceived funniness of the stimuli is related to this arousal level in a curvilinear manner
(i.e., inverted- U relationship). Levi (1965) showed female office clerks a series of four
different films (emotionally neutral, fear-arousing, anger-arousing, and comedy) on
different days. After each film, he collected urine samples from the participants and
analyzed them for levels of epinephrine and norepinephrine, hormones that are asso-
ciated with activation of the sympathetic nervous system. The results showed that,
whereas the emotionally neutral film resulted in decreases in these hormones, the
other three films all produced significant increases. Thus, the amusement associated
with comedy produces similar arousal of the sympathetic-adrenomedullary system
(the well-known fight or flight response) as do feelings of fear and anger. More recent
research has also shown comedy-related increases in levels of cortisol, a hormone that
is normally associated with the stress response (Hubert, Moeller, and de Jong-Meyer,
1993).
Other researchers monitored various psychophysiological variables associated
with arousal of the sympathetic nervous system while participants were exposed to
comedy. Averill (1969) found increased skin conductance (a measure of emotion-
related sweating) and heart rate in participants watching a comedy film, indicating
sympathetic arousal. Langevin and Day (1972) examined the relationship between
psychophysiological changes in participants and the rated funniness of humor across
a series of cartoons. The results showed that cartoons that were rated as funnier were
associated with greater increases in heart rate and skin conductance. Contrary to
Berlyne's theory, there was no evidence of an inverted- U relationship between arousal
and funniness; instead, the relationship was found to be linear.
Godkewitsch (1976) further evaluated Berlyne's theory of arousal boost and
arousal jag mechanisms by assessing physiological responses in research participants
during the presentation of both the joke body and the punch line of a series of jokes,
as well as having the participants afterwards rate their subjective arousal level and the
funniness of the jokes. The results revealed that jokes that were rated as funnier were
associated with greater increases in skin conductance during both the joke body and
the punch line, greater increases in heart rate during the punch line, and greater sub-
jective arousal ratings subsequently. These results supported Berlyne's notion of an
"arousal boost" mechanism in humor, but did not support the "arousal jag" concept.
Instead of lowering arousal to a supposedly optimal level, the punch lines were found
to increase arousal even further than that found with the joke bodies.
The results of Godkewitsch's study, combined with the findings of several other
investigations examining heart rate, skin conductance, blood pressure, muscle tension,
and other psychophysiological variables (e.g., Chapman, 1973a, 1976; Goldstein,
Harman, McGhee, and Karasik, 1975; J. M.Jones and Harris, 1971), provide consis-
tent evidence that exposure to humor produces increased sympathetic nervous system
AROUSAL THEORIES 61
activation, with almost no evidence for the inverted- U relationship predicted by
optimal arousal theories like Berlyne's. The relationship between humor enjoyment
and autonomic arousal appears to be linear; the more arousal, the more enjoyment
and the funnier the humor is perceived to be (McGhee, 1983b). These findings are
consistent with the view of humor as essentially an emotional response (i.e., mirth)
which, like other emotions, is associated with increased physiological arousal.
Based on evidence that the degree of humor appreciation is largely determined
by the level of emotional arousal, Cantor, Bryant, and Zillmann (1974) conducted a
"transfer of excitation" experiment to test the hypothesis that residual arousal associ-
ated with either strong positive or strong negative emotions could increase the enjoy-
ment of subsequent humor. In a 2 x 2 design, participants were randomly assigned to
either a positive or negative hedonic tone condition and to either a high or low arousal
condition. In the low arousal positive condition, they read mildly interesting articles
from a newspaper; in the high arousal positive condition, they read a graphically
descriptive erotic passage from a novel. In the low arousal negative condition, they
read a mildly disturbing newspaper article; in the high arousal negative condition,
they read a graphic description of a lynch mob's brutal torture and mutilation of a
young boy. In a supposedly different experiment, the participants were subsequently
asked to rate the funniness of a series of jokes and cartoons that did not contain
obvious sexual or hostile themes.
As predicted, participants who had been exposed to either of the high arousal
emotion conditions (positive or negative) rated the humor stimuli as much funnier
than did those in the two low arousal conditions. These results indicate that increased
emotional arousal, regardless of whether it is produced by a positive or a negative
emotion, can contribute to greater enjoyment of humor. These findings also provide
a more plausible explanation of the tension-relief function of humor than the old
"steam-engine" model. The arousal associated with negative emotions like fear,
anxiety, or anger that are evoked by an unpleasant or stressful event can later be trans-
ferred to the positive feelings of mirth accompanying any humor that may occur,
intensifying the pleasurable feelings to a degree that is proportional to the amount of
negative emotion, and this heightened feeling of pleasure is then expressed through
intense laughter.
Shurcliff (1968) conducted an interesting experiment to test the hypothesis that
humor represents a sudden relief from strong emotion, using anxiety as the emotion.
To manipulate their levels of anxiety, participants were informed that they would be
required to perform various tasks with a white rat that they were to remove from a
cage. They were randomly assigned to different conditions involving tasks evoking
varying degrees of anxiety, ranging from merely holding the rat to giving it an injec-
tion with a large syringe. When the subjects reached into the cage and removed the
rat, they discovered that it was just a rubber toy. They were then asked to rate their
anxiety and the funniness of the experience.
As predicted by relief theory, the reported level of anxiety of the participants prior
to the discovery of the toy rat was found to be positively correlated with the funni-
ness ratings: those who thought they would need to give the rat an injection with an
THEORIES AND EARLY RESEARCH II
imposing-looking needle found the surprising outcome runnier than did those who
merely thought they would need to hold it. However, the idea of relief from anxiety
(i.e., anxiety-reduction) was not directly tested in the study. These findings seem to
be better explained in terms of the "transfer of excitation" concept, whereby the
mirthful emotion associated with the perception of funniness was enhanced by the
residual arousal resulting from the anticipatory anxiety, rather than by a sudden reduc-
tion in that arousal.
Evaluation
Research based on arousal theories of humor has contributed important infor-
mation to our understanding of the humor process. Berlyne's theory, and the research
it inspired, supports the view that humor represents a complex, physiologically-based
interaction between cognition and emotion. Humor is clearly an emotional phenom-
enon as well as a cognitive one. With regard to the cognitive aspects, Berlyne's ideas
about collative properties in humor have not received much further research atten-
tion. With regard to his ideas about the emotional aspects, though, there is consis-
tent support for the idea that humor is associated with increased autonomic arousal
and that increases in arousal, regardless of their source, can increase the subsequent
emotional enjoyment of humor. However, there is little evidence for an inverted- U
relationship between arousal level and enjoyment; instead, the relationship appears to
be linear. Rather than reducing emotional arousal levels, humor itself is an emotional
response that is accompanied by increases in arousal, and is expressed by the vocal
and facial behavior of laughter.
The emotional component of humor has gained increasing attention among
researchers in recent years. As one example, Willibald Ruch (1997) has investigated
the positive emotion associated with humor, using Ekman and Friesen's (1978) Facial
Action Coding system. Research on biological aspects of humor, mirth, and laughter
has also continued to the present time. The early psychophysiological investigations
of arousal led to further studies of physiological processes associated with humor and
mirth in the autonomic nervous system, the endocrine and immune systems, and the
brain. Today, this line of research continues in studies of brain processes in humor
using sophisticated methodologies such as functional magnetic resonance imaging
(fMRI). This research will be discussed in more detail in Chapter 6.
INCONGRUITY THEORIES
Overview of the Theories
We have seen that most of the different theories have something to say about the
cognitive-perceptual aspects of humor. For example, Freud's ideas about jokework and
Berlyne's collative variables both referred to cognitive components. Incongruity theo-
ries of humor focus even more specifically on cognition and give less attention to the
INCONGRUITY THEORIES
social and emotional aspects of humor. These theories suggest that the perception of
incongruity is the crucial determinant of whether or not something is humorous:
things that are funny are incongruous, surprising, peculiar, unusual, or different from
what we normally expect. As we saw in Chapter 1, the idea that incongruity is the
basis of humor has been proposed by many philosophers and theorists over the past
250 years.
The eighteenth-century writer Beattie stated that "laughter arises from the view
of two or more inconsistent, unsuitable, or incongruous parts or circumstances, con-
sidered as united in one complex object or assemblage, or as acquiring a sort of mutual
relation from the peculiar manner in which the mind takes notice of them" (quoted
in Ritchie, 2004, p. 48). Similarly, the German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer
(1788-1860) stated that "the cause of laughter in every case is simply the sudden
perception of the incongruity between a concept and the real objects which have
been thought through it in some relation, and laughter itself is just the expression of
this incongruity" (in The World as Will and Idea, reprinted in Morreall, 1987, p. 52).
Thus, humor occurs when there is a mismatch or clash between our sensory percep-
tions of something and our abstract knowledge or concepts about that thing.
Summarizing the cognitive elements involved in humor, psychologist Hans Eysenck
(1942, p. 307) stated that "laughter results from the sudden, insightful integration of
contradictory or incongruous ideas, attitudes, or sentiments which are experienced
objectively."
The incongruity approach to humor was further elaborated by Arthur Koestler
(1964), who developed the concept of bisociation to explain the mental processes
involved in humor, as well as in artistic creativity and scientific discovery. According
to Koestler, bisociation occurs when a situation, event, or idea is simultaneously per-
ceived from the perspective of two self-consistent but normally incompatible or dis-
parate frames of reference. Thus, a single event "is made to vibrate simultaneously on
two different wavelengths, as it were" (p. 35). A simple example is a pun, in which
two different meanings of a word or phrase are brought together simultaneously (e.g.,
"Why do people become bakers? Because they knead the dough").
The following joke (from Suls, 1972, p. 90) may be used to illustrate these ideas:
O'Riley was on trial for armed robbery. The jury came out and announced, "Not guilty."
"Wonderful," said O'Riley, "does that mean I can keep the money?"
The punch line of this joke is incongruous, or inconsistent with the setup, since the
man is implicitly admitting his guilt after just having been found not guilty. This sur-
prising ending triggers two incompatible thoughts: he is guilty and not guilty at the
same time. Thus, in the humorous mode of thinking, contrary to the rational logic
of normal, serious thought, a thing can be both X and not-X at the same time (Mulkay,
1988). Indeed, it is this simultaneous activation of two contradictory perceptions that
is the essence of humor. It is worth noting incidentally that a proponent of superior-
ity theory, such as Gruner (1997), would say that we are laughing at the stupidity of
the crook who inadvertently admits his guilt after just being found innocent (the name
O'Riley indicates that it is also an ethnic joke playing on the stereotype of the Irish
THEORIES AND EARLY RESEARCH II
as slow-witted). Although Koestler (1964) agreed that bisociation must be accompa-
nied by some aggression in order for it to be funny, later incongruity theorists have
generally focused only on the cognitive aspects of humor and have downplayed or
even denied the importance of aggressive elements.
Although some form of incongruity is generally viewed as a necessary condition
for humor, most theorists would acknowledge that incongruity by itself is not suffi-
cient, since not all incongruity is funny (being hit by a car while walking on the
sidewalk is incongruous but not funny). Different theories have different ways of
explaining this "something extra." For example, some theories have suggested that the
incongruity must occur suddenly (Suls, 1983), or must take place in a playful and non-
threatening context (Rothbart, 1976). One idea that was popularized by several cog-
nitive theorists in the 1970s was that, for incongruity to be funny, it must also be
resolved or "make sense" in some way. According to these "incongruity-resolution"
theories, resolution of incongruity in a joke is what makes it possible for us to "get
the joke." Thomas Shultz (1972), at McGill University, developed an incongruity-
resolution theory in which he suggested that the punch line of a joke creates an
incongruity by introducing information that is not compatible with our initial under-
standing of the joke setup. This then prompts the listener to go back and search for
an ambiguity in the setup that can be interpreted in a different way and that allows
for the punch line to make sense. The ambiguity that provides this resolution of the
incongruity can take a number of different forms, including phonological, lexical,
surface structure, deep structure, and nonlinguistic forms of ambiguity.
These ideas may be illustrated by the following joke (from Ritchie, 2004, p. 62):
A lady went into a clothing store and asked "May I try on that dress in the window?" "Well," replied
the sales clerk doubtfully, "don't you think it would be better to use the dressing room?"
Here the punch line is initially incongruous because it seems incompatible with the
first part of the joke. To understand the joke, we search through the setup for an ambi-
guity and discover that "in the window" is ambiguous. On first hearing the setup, we
interpret this phrase as referring to the current location of the dress, but after the
punch line we realize that there is also an alternate meaning, i.e., the place where the
shopper wishes to try on the dress. When we recognize that the clerk understood it
in this second meaning, we are able to resolve the incongruity and thereby "get" the
joke.
Similar to Shultz, Jerry Suls (1972, 1983), then at the State University of New
York at Albany, proposed a two-stage model of humor comprehension that is fre-
quently cited by humor researchers. This theory also views humor comprehension as
a sort of problem-solving task (see Figure 2). According to the model, a joke setup
causes the listener to make a prediction about the likely outcome. When the punch
line does not conform to the prediction, the listener is surprised and looks for a cog-
nitive rule that will make the punch line follow from the material in the joke setup.
When this cognitive rule is found, the incongruity is removed, the joke is perceived
as funny, and laughter ensues. If a cognitive rule is not found, however, the incon-
gruity remains, and the joke leads only to puzzlement instead of humor. Thus, in this
INCONGRUITY THEORIES
Story or
Cartoon
Set-up
w
Prediction
of
Outcome
fc,
Is ending
as
predicted?
FIGURE 2 Suls' Incongruity Resolution Model. Comprehension of humor is viewed as a
process of problem solving. (Adapted from Suls, 1972).
view, humor arises from the removal or resolution of an incongruity, rather than from
the ongoing presence of an incongruity.
The two-stage model may be illustrated with the following joke (from Raskin,
1985, p. 106):
An English bishop received the following note from the vicar of a village in his diocese: "Milord, I
regret to inform you of my wife's death. Can you possibly send me a substitute for the weekend?"
In the joke setup we learn that a vicar (local priest) has sent a note to the bishop fol-
lowing the death of the vicar's wife. This leads us to predict a possible outcome,
perhaps having to do with the vicar seeking the sympathy of the bishop in some way.
In the punch line, the vicar's request for a substitute seems surprising (incongruous),
as he seems to be asking the bishop to send him a replacement for his dead wife for
the coming weekend. The puzzlement created by this unexpected ending causes the
listener to go back over the joke setup and search for a "cognitive rule" that will make
the surprising ending fit with the setup. When it is realized that the vicar is actually
asking for another clergyman to officiate at the church service in his place while the
vicar is mourning the death of his wife, the joke makes sense (the incongruity is
resolved), and we find it amusing. Thus, in this model, joke comprehension and appre-
ciation is essentially a sort of cognitive problem-solving task.
Note, once again, that Freud would likely see an important sexual aspect to
this joke. Our initial interpretation of the punch line implies that the vicar, seeking
another woman so soon after his wife died (and apparently just for the weekend), is
particularly interested in sex. However, incongruity theorists tend to ignore the
THEORIES AND EARLY RESEARCH II
"tendentious" (sexual and aggressive) elements of humor that are emphasized in psy-
choanalytic and superiority/disparagement theories. Indeed, several cognitively
oriented theorists have sought to subsume these latter theories within incongruity
theory. For example, Suls (1977) argued that the aspects of jokes that are usually
thought to be aggressive and disparaging are not really aggressive, but instead are
a way of providing the information needed for the incongruity to be resolved. To
illustrate, he used the following joke (p. 42):
Question: If your son flunks out of school and is illiterate and anti-social, what can he grow up
to be?
Answer: An Italian policeman.
From the perspective of disparagement and superiority theories, this joke is amusing
to people who dislike Italians because it disparages people of that nationality, and more
specifically Italian policemen. Analyzing the joke from the perspective of incongruity-
resolution theory, however, Suls argued that the aggressive element merely provides
a way of resolving the incongruity. There is an incongruity between the joke setup
and the punch line, since being uneducated, illiterate, and antisocial does not seem to
be consistent with being a policeman. This incongruity is resolved, however, when we
recognize the existence of a stereotype that Italians are stupid.
Although Suls suggested that we may actually need to believe this stereotype in
order to "get" the joke, other authors have argued that simply recognizing that such
a stereotype exists, without actually agreeing with it, is all that is needed to enjoy a
joke (e.g., Attardo and Raskin, 1991). According to these authors, seemingly aggres-
sive (e.g., ethnic, sexist) forms of humor are not really aggressive at all: they simply
make use of common stereotypes to play with ideas in an amusing way. Goldstein,
Suls, and Anthony (1972) referred to this view as the salience hypothesis, since the
purpose of aggressive and sexual elements in jokes is to make salient the information
needed to resolve the incongruity. In this way, cognitive theorists were able to com-
pletely sanitize humor, removing any residue of the aggression and other tendentious
elements that were once seen as being essential to it.
Although incongruity-resolution theorists saw resolution as essential for humor
to occur in response to a joke, they recognized that the incongruity is never com-
pletely resolved. As Forabosco (1992) pointed out, the resolution is really just a
"pseudo-resolution," which makes sense only within the fantasy world of the joke. If
a joke truly made sense, and the incongruity was completely resolved, it would simply
be a nonhumorous puzzle instead of a joke. Similarly, McGhee (1972) wrote about
the "fantasy assimilation" that occurs in jokes as being quite different from the "reality
assimilation" of more serious cognitive processing. Pien and Rothbart (1977) also
noted that the resolution of a joke often introduces new incongruities that can add to
its enjoyment.
Empirical Investigations
The incongruity-resolution theory of humor was investigated in a series of studies
by Thomas Shultz and his colleagues at McGill University. Shultz (1974b) presented
INCONGRUITY THEORIES
undergraduate students a series of jokes and asked them to identify the order in which
they noticed various elements within each. The results supported the predictions of
Shultz's incongruity-resolution theory: subjects reported that they did not notice the
hidden meaning of an ambiguous element in the joke setup until the incongruity of
the punch line caused them to search for a resolution. A second study using visual
cartoons instead of verbal jokes also showed that participants tended to notice incon-
gruous elements before noticing details that resolved the incongruity.
Shultz and his colleagues also examined the role of incongruity and resolution by
creating incongruity-removed and resolution-removed versions of jokes and cartoons.
If incongruity and resolution are essential to humor, then removal of either of them
should decrease humor appreciation. For example, one of the original jokes was the
following:
Mother: "Doctor, come at once! Our baby swallowed a fountain pen!"
Doctor: "I'll be right over. What are you doing in the meantime?"
Mother: "Using a pencil."
In this joke, the incongruous reply of the mother in the punch line is resolved by rec-
ognizing the ambiguity in the doctor's question, which could mean either "What are
you doing in the meantime to treat the baby?" or "What are you using as a substi-
tute for a fountain pen?" In the incongruity-removed version of the joke, Shultz
changed the punch line to: "We don't know what to do." In this version, there is no
incongruity between the joke setup and the punch line and therefore no puzzle to
solve. In the resolution-removed version, Shultz had the parents saying that the baby
had swallowed a rubber band instead of a fountain pen. Now the punch line ("Using
a pencil") is still incongruous and puzzling, but there is no resolution, since there is
no logical connection between the baby swallowing a rubber band and the parents
using a pencil.
Shultz and Horibe (1974) presented these different versions of a number of jokes
to children in grades 1, 3, 5, and 7. The children were asked to rate the funniness of
the jokes, and the experimenters also observed the degree to which they smiled and
laughed. As predicted, the results showed that, by grade 3, the children found the
original versions of the jokes funnier than the resolution-removed versions, which in
turn were found to be funnier than the incongruity-removed versions. Thus, incon-
gruity without resolution is funnier than no incongruity, but resolution of the incon-
gruity is even funnier. Similar results were found using original, incongruity-removed,
and resolution-removed versions of cartoons (Shultz, 1972) and riddles (Shultz,
1974a).
Interestingly, in the study by Shultz and Horibe (1974), children in grade 1
showed no difference between the original and resolution-removed jokes, but both
were funnier than the versions without incongruity. The authors suggested that, at an
early stage of development (prior to the development of concrete operational thought)
incongruity alone is sufficient to elicit a humor response, whereas both incongruity
and resolution are required at a later stage. However, Pien and Rothbart (1976)
found that younger children also appreciate joke resolutions if the humor is easy to
understand.
THEORIES AND EARLY RESEARCH II
Problems with this methodology were noted, however, by some researchers, who
pointed out that it is difficult to hold some of the elements of a joke constant while
varying others (Nerhardt, 1977; Pien and Rothbart, 1977). For example, removing
the resolution from jokes and cartoons may also eliminate some of the incongruity. If
participants then prefer the original jokes over those with resolution removed, it is
difficult to know whether this is due to the differences in resolution or incongruity.
Frank Wicker and colleagues (1981) at the University of Texas at Austin attempted
to get around these problems by taking a different approach. They had research
participants rate a number of jokes on a funniness scale and also on 1 3 other scales
assessing dimensions suggested by various theories of humor, including incongruity-
resolution, superiority, psychoanalytic, and arousal theories. These ratings included:
surprise, nonsense, resolution, difficulty, emotional involvement, superiority, sym-
pathy, pain, freedom, and anxiety. Participants' ratings on each of the scales were
averaged for each joke, and a factor analysis was conducted on these averaged
ratings.
This analysis revealed three factors relating to: (1) cognitive incongruity-
resolution elements (surprise, resolution, originality), (2) superiority, and (3) emo-
tional elements (anxiety, pain, importance, emotional involvement). The funniness
ratings loaded primarily on the cognitive factor, a finding that was interpreted as indi-
cating that funniness is primarily determined by information-processing mechanisms
relating to incongruity and resolution. The emotionality factor also correlated with
funniness, but this association was mediated by incongruity and resolution ratings,
suggesting that the effects of emotional elements on humor appreciation (such as
those described by superiority and psychoanalytic theories) may depend in part on the
cleverness of the cognitive elements described by incongruity-resolution theories.
This finding was taken as support for the salience hypothesis advocated by propo-
nents of incongruity-resolution theories.
However, not all cognitive theorists were convinced by the evidence for
incongruity-resolution theories. For example, Swedish psychologist Goran Nerhardt,
at the University of Stockholm, argued that incongruity alone is sufficient for humor,
and that resolution of the incongruity is not necessary. Nerhardt (1970) was dissatis-
fied with the use of jokes and cartoons as stimuli in experiments on cognitive processes
in humor. Since jokes incorporate many unmeasured and uncontrolled linguistic
elements and emotional themes, he argued, it is difficult to know which dimensions
are responsible for research participants' funniness ratings. Also, when subjects are
asked to rate the funniness of jokes, their own assumptions and implicit theories
of humor may influence their responses. To avoid these problems, Nerhardt devel-
oped a rather clever methodology, called the weight judgment paradigm, as a way of
experimentally manipulating incongruity, which he defined as divergence from
expectation.
In this paradigm, participants, who were led to believe that they were involved in
a psychophysical study, were asked to compare a series of identical-looking weights
with a standard reference weight. A number of very similar weights (averaging
500 +/- 50 g) were evaluated first, and then one that was much lighter or heavier than
INCONGRUITY THEORIES
the standard (50 g or 3000 g) was presented (see Deckers, 1993, for a detailed descrip-
tion of the methodology). Interestingly, when participants lifted this greatly discrepant
weight, they frequently smiled, chuckled, or even laughed aloud, and Nerhardt (1970,
1976) found that the more discrepant this weight was from the mean of the other
comparisons, the more the subjects displayed such expressions of mirth. Thus, the
size of the incongruity (the discrepancy in weight) was directly related to the amount
of smiling and laughter evoked. Furthermore, several studies using this paradigm
showed sizable correlations between the intensity of these mirth responses and par-
ticipants' ratings of the funniness of the experience (Deckers, 1993; Deckers, Jenkins,
and Gladfelter, 1977; Deckers, Pell, and Lundahl, 1990), indicating that the smiling
and laughter was a reflection of humorous amusement and not just embarrassment or
nervousness. The weight judgment paradigm, then, is a way of operationally defining
incongruity without using inherently humorous stimuli such as jokes and cartoons,
and it seems to reliably produce an emotional mirth response that is expressed by
smiling and laughter.
Lambert Deckers and his colleagues at Ball State University used this procedure
in a number of experiments, in which they varied different parameters to examine
their effects on the mirth response. For example, Deckers and Kizer (1975) found that
a minimum number of initial comparisons was needed in order to build up an expec-
tation about the weight before a discrepancy would evoke expressions of mirth. In
addition, studies that manipulated the degree of discrepancy between the final and
earlier weights showed a negatively accelerated relationship with the amount of
smiling and laughter evoked: greater discrepancies evoked a greater amount of these
responses up to a point, after which additional increases in the weight discrepancy did
not produce more mirth (Deckers and Edington, 1979; Deckers and Salais, 1983;
Gerber and Routh, 1975).
Studies comparing the effects of unexpectedly heavy versus light weights indi-
cated that weights that were heavier than expected evoked more humor than did those
that were lighter than expected (Deckers and Kizer, 1974; Gerber and Routh, 1975).
When subjects were asked to make judgments about either the height or the weight
of a series of stimuli and then presented with stimuli that were incongruous in either
height or weight, mirth reactions were greater when the critical comparison was dis-
crepant in the particular dimension that the subject had been judging (Deckers,
Edington, and VanCleave, 1981).
Nerhardt (1976) and Deckers (1993) argued that the weight judgment findings
demonstrate that incongruity without resolution is capable of eliciting humor, con-
tradicting incongruity-resolution theories which suggest that incongruity must be
resolved for it to be funny. At the same time, they recognized that there are other
necessary conditions in addition to incongruity for a humor response to be evoked.
Interestingly, Nerhardt (1976) was initially unsuccessful in his early experiments with
the weight judgment paradigm, which he carried out in the guise of a consumer survey
in a railroad station. There he found that train passengers who were asked to judge
weights of a series of suitcases did not respond with expressions of mirth to unex-
pectedly heavy or light ones. This was apparently because they were inclined to take
THEORIES AND EARLY RESEARCH II
the experiment too seriously, were perhaps in a hurry to get somewhere, and were not
easily put into the playful frame of mind that also seems to be necessary for a humor
response to occur (cf. Apter, 1982). When the experimental paradigm was moved into
a laboratory, using undergraduate participants who were more familiar with psycho-
logical research, and an effort was made to put the subjects at ease, smiling and laugh-
ter began to be elicited by the discrepant weight. Thus, although resolution of
incongruity may not be necessary for humor, it does appear that there are other
requirements besides incongruity, having to do with the emotional climate or mental
set of the perceiver. In sum, incongruity seems to be a necessary but not a sufficient
condition for humor.
Several studies have also investigated the salience hypothesis proposed by
incongruity-resolution theorists. As we saw in the previous chapter in our discussion
of psychoanalytic theory, earlier research showed that participants are more likely to
enjoy aggressive humor after they have been made angry and to enjoy sexual humor
after they have been sexually aroused (e.g., Strickland, 1959). These findings were
interpreted by psychoanalytic theorists as demonstrating support for drive theory. In
contrast, incongruity-resolution theorists Goldstein, Suls, and Anthony (1972) sug-
gested that these experimental manipulations simply increased the salience of sexual
and aggressive themes, thereby creating a cognitive set that made the corresponding
jokes easier to understand.
To test this idea, Goldstein and colleagues (1972) conducted an experiment in
which they presented participants with photographs depicting either scenes of vio-
lence or automobiles. After rating the photographs for aesthetic value, the subjects
were asked to rate the funniness of a number of cartoons that were either aggressive
or contained automobiles as a major element. As predicted by the salience hypothe-
sis, those who had been exposed to aggressive photographs rated aggressive humor as
funnier, whereas those who had been exposed to photographs of automobiles pre-
ferred the cartoons about automobiles.
In a second study, the researchers showed that exposure to music-related jokes
increases subsequent enjoyment of other jokes about music, whereas exposure to jokes
about medical topics increases subsequent enjoyment of medical jokes. Since pictures
of automobiles and jokes about music and medicine are not likely to arouse specific
drives, the results appear to support the hypothesis that it is the salience of the content,
rather than arousal of a drive, that accounts for the increased appreciation of the
humor. The authors concluded that "the most parsimonious explanation of the data
would rule out motivation as an explanatory concept, since the salience hypothesis
can account for the appreciation of nonsense as well as aggressive and sexual humor"
(p. 169).
A subsequent study by Kuhlman (1985), however, provided less support for the
salience hypothesis. Kuhlman manipulated salience in a less obvious way by having
participants rate the funniness of a series of jokes either in a normal college class-
room, or just before they were to take an examination, or in the middle of an exam.
One-third of the jokes contained social taboo themes (sex, profanity, violence), one
third contained themes relating to academic examinations (salient jokes), and one
INCONGRUITY THEORIES
third involved neutral themes. An effort was made to equate the jokes for character-
istics that might affect funniness, such as difficulty, the incongruity techniques used,
length, and so on. The salience hypothesis would predict that the exam-related jokes
should be enjoyed more just before or during an exam than during a normal class.
However, the results showed that the jokes containing taboo themes were pre-
ferred over the other two types in all three experimental conditions. Rather than
supporting the salience hypothesis, these results appear to support motivational-
emotional views such as psychoanalytic and superiority/disparagement theories. An
additional finding was that all three types of jokes were enjoyed more by the subjects
who were in the middle of an exam than by those in the other two conditions. This
result, consistent with arousal theories of humor, suggests that humor appreciation is
elevated by increased levels of state anxiety. A study by Derks and Arora (1993)
also found little support for the salience hypothesis. In summary, the existing evidence
for the salience hypothesis is inconsistent. This is a topic that merits further
investigation.
According to incongruity theories, the funniness of a joke depends on the unex-
pectedness or surprisingness of the punch line. Thus, the funniest jokes should be
those having the most unpredictable or surprising endings (e.g., Shultz, 1976; Suls,
1972). However, this hypothesis has not been supported by research, which has tended
to show instead that more predictable joke endings are actually funnier than less pre-
dictable ones. For example, Kenny (1955) had a group of participants rate a number
of jokes on the degree to which the punch line corresponded to what they expected
it would be, and another group of participants were asked to rate the same jokes for
funniness. Mean ratings on these two scales were computed for each joke, and the
correlation between them was analyzed. Contrary to the predictions of incongruity-
resolution theory, a significant positive correlation was found: the jokes with the most
predictable punch lines were rated as most funny.
A difficulty with Kenny's study was that the ratings of predictability were made
retrospectively by the participants after they had already heard the punch lines, and
it may therefore have been difficult for them to judge accurately the degree to which
they had been expecting those particular punch lines. To correct this problem, Pollio
and Mers (1974) had participants listen to a number of tape recordings of comedy
routines by Bill Cosby and Phyllis Diller. The recordings were stopped immediately
before the punch lines of the jokes were delivered, and the subjects were instructed
to write out what they thought the punch lines would be. The researchers subse-
quently rated the degree to which these predicted punch lines conformed to the actual
punch lines delivered by the comedians. These similarity ratings were found to be
positively correlated with the funniness ratings, smiling, and laughter of a different
set of subjects in response to the same recordings: jokes that were most predictable
were most funny. Like the findings of Kenny (1955), these results appear to contra-
dict incongruity theory. People seem to find a joke funnier when they "see the punch
line coming" than when it is completely unexpected. Pollio and Mers concluded that
"laughter is a partial exclamation of achievement rather than an expression of surprise
over incongruity" (p. 232).
3 • THEORIES AND EARLY RESEARCH II
Evaluation
Incongruity theories have made an important contribution to our understanding
of humor. When they were introduced in the late 1960s and early 1970s, they drew
researchers' attention to cognitive-perceptual aspects of humor, which had been seen
as only having secondary importance in other approaches such as psychoanalytic,
superiority/disparagement, and arousal theories. Incongruity theories stimulated a
great deal of research and further theoretical development that have continued to the
present day (more recent cognitive theory and research will be discussed in the next
chapter). In 1967, when topics such as aggression, sexual drive, and arousal were the
main focus of attention in research on humor, Zigler, Levine, and Gould noted a ten-
dency for researchers to "underestimate the importance of cognitive factors in deter-
mining the degree of laughter" (p. 332). However, the situation has since then been
reversed, as cognitive approaches to humor became the prevailing view, and emotional
aspects became much less frequently studied. This growing focus on cognition in
humor paralleled the trend toward an information-processing orientation in psychol-
ogy generally, as well as related disciplines such as linguistics. More recently, however,
there has been some renewed interest in emotional aspects. In particular, the emo-
tional nature of humor has been highlighted by recent brain-imaging studies (Berns,
2004). The contemporary movement known as "positive psychology" has also gener-
ated new interest in the study of positive emotions in general and the emotion of
mirth in particular (e.g., Aspinwall and Staudinger, 2003; Fredrickson, 2001).
The research evidence to date generally supports the idea that incongruity of
some sort is an essential element of humor. Some variation of Koestler's (1964) idea
that humor involves the activation of two normally incompatible frames of reference
continues to form the basis of most humor theories today. However, it is important
to note that the concept of incongruity is still rather vague and not well defined
(Ritchie, 2004). Moreover, the different variants of incongruity and incongruity-
resolution theories present somewhat different conceptualizations of the function of
incongruity. For example, in both Shultz's and Suls' theories, incongruity is no longer
present at the point where a joke is perceived to be funny, since it has been "resolved"
by then. This is quite different from Koestler's original view, in which the "bisocia-
tion" (i.e., the ongoing incongruity) is what creates the humorous effect, rather
than its removal. Ritchie (2004) has also noted that, although the theories of Shultz
and Suls are generally viewed as essentially interchangeable, there are some subtle
but important differences between them. He suggested that these different theories
may apply to different subclasses of jokes rather than to all jokes, much less all
humor. As we will see in the next chapter, theorists and researchers continue to make
refinements to the ideas and research methodologies of the earlier incongruity
theorists.
Although some sort of incongruity (however defined) seems to be necessary for
all types of humor, there is less evidence for the idea that resolution is also essential.
Theorists subscribing to the incongruity-resolution view typically based their
theories on the joke as the prototype of humor, and tested their hypotheses with
INCONGRUITY THEORIES
research using jokes and cartoons. In contrast, much of the evidence for humorous
incongruity without resolution comes from non-joke-related humor, such as the
weight judgment paradigm. The processes involved in jokes may not be the same as
those in other forms of humor, such as spontaneous conversational humor (e.g.,
witticisms, puns, slips of the tongue, spoonerisms) and nonverbal humor (e.g., slap-
stick comedy). It may be that incongruity-resolution theories apply particularly to a
certain class of jokes and cartoons, whereas resolution may be less important in other
jokes and other forms of humor. In Chapter 7, I will discuss research by Willibald
Ruch (e.g., Ruch and Hehl, 1998) indicating that jokes and cartoons can be divided
into two general categories on the basis of whether or not they involve the resolution
of incongruity.
As Long and Graesser (1988) noted, jokes and cartoons, which are context-
independent, can be enjoyed in almost any situation, since they contain within them-
selves all the information needed for their understanding. Other forms of humor are
more context-sensitive, requiring information arising from the situation to create the
humor. This is why the latter types of humor often lose their funniness when described
out of context ("You had to be there"). This portability of jokes and cartoons is also
the reason why they have been most commonly used in humor research, while
more spontaneous forms of humor that arise in the course of social interactions, which
are more difficult to create in a laboratory, are less frequently studied. However, the
study of jokes and cartoons may provide only limited information about other more
spontaneous types of humor. Since jokes and cartoons also play only a minor role in
the humor that most people experience in their daily lives (Mannell and McMahon,
1982; R. A. Martin and Kuiper, 1999; Provine, 2000), it is important for researchers
to study the cognitive processes involved in other forms of humor besides jokes. For-
tunately, as we will see in the next chapter, theorists and researchers in recent years
have begun to pay more attention to cognitive processes involved in non-joke-related
humor.
Another weakness of incongruity-resolution theories is that they try to explain
the cognitive processes involved in joke comprehension without taking the social
context of joke-telling into account. The suggestion that listeners are surprised or
puzzled by an unexpected punch line assumes that they are seeking to understand
humor as they would serious forms of communication, where contradictory informa-
tion is puzzling and unsettling. However, as more recent theorists have noted (e.g.,
Norrick, 2003; Wyer and Collins, 1992), when jokes are told in normal social situa-
tions, they are usually prefaced by cues alerting the listeners to the fact that they are
about to hear a joke ("Did you hear the one about . . ."). Even in the research context,
when jokes are used as stimuli, subjects are told that they will be presented with jokes,
or they are alerted to this fact by instructions to rate their funniness. Since listeners
usually know that they are hearing a joke, they are likely more actively involved in
anticipating the outcome and are not as surprised by the punch line as incongruity-
resolution theories suggested. Rather than being surprising or unexpected, incon-
gruity is actually expected in humor, and, indeed, a lack of incongruity would
be surprising. When people know that they are hearing a joke, then, they likely
THEORIES AND EARLY RESEARCH II
anticipate and search for an incongruity, and their ability to predict the incongruity
may even enhance the funniness of the joke. This would explain why Pollio and Mers
(1974) found that the funniest jokes were those in which the subjects were best able
to predict the punch lines. Thus, while the perception of some sort of incongruity
seems to play a central role in humor, the incongruity may not need to be unantici-
pated to be enjoyed. This would also account for the fact that jokes and humorous
incidents can often continue to be amusing even after repeated retelling (Eysenck,
1942).
Although incongruity theories and other cognitive approaches make important
contributions to the study of humor, it is important also to note that they do not ade-
quately account for all aspects of humor. In particular, these approaches do not explain
the emotional and social aspects of humor that are the focus of other theories. As we
have seen, many cognitive theorists attempt to subordinate these "tendentious" ele-
ments to the cognitive mechanisms, denying their importance in humor. While
reading these theorists' analyses of various jokes, one is often struck by the degree to
which they completely ignore the seemingly obvious sexual, aggressive, and other
emotion-arousing aspects. As we have seen, though, there is considerable evidence
that sexual and aggressive elements can contribute to the enjoyment of humor inde-
pendently of the cognitive mechanisms. Many jokes are difficult to explain on the basis
of cognitive processes alone. Consider the following joke (from Gruner, 1978, p. 35),
for example:
A woman sideswiped a car driven by a man. The woman climbed out and apologized for the
accident. The man demurred: "That's O.K. lady, it was all my fault. I could see it was a woman
driving your car from half a mile away, and I had lots of time to drive off into a field and avoid all
this."
Incongruity-resolution theories would suggest that the main source of the humor here
is the incongruity of a person taking the blame for an accident that he did not cause
and saying he should have avoided it by driving into a field. This incongruity is
resolved by accessing the stereotype that women are inherently such terrible drivers
that they cannot do anything about it and therefore should not be held respon-
sible. What appears to be aggression is merely what enables one to "get" the joke; it
wouldn't be resolved otherwise. However, this sort of explanation seems to ignore the
emotional nature of humor and turn it into a purely intellectual exercise. What is the
source of pleasure in this joke? Is it merely the intellectual enjoyment of playing with
a puzzling incongruity and then discovering its resolution, or is it the emotional pleas-
ure of taking a playfully aggressive jab at women drivers? It is likely a combination of
both. Cognitive processes involving incongruity and resolution are what make the
joke funny, while aggressive elements enhance the feelings of enjoyment. Without the
cognitive elements peculiar to humor, aggression is not funny, but without the aggres-
sion (or some other emotional element), incongruity is not very enjoyable. Again, it
is important to remember that any aggression in humor is only playful and not nec-
essarily "serious" (Gruner, 1997).
REVERSAL THEORY
The importance of noncognitive factors in humor was also emphasized by Arthur
Koestler (1964), whose concept of bisociation is often seen as the basis of contempo-
rary incongruity theories. He spoke of the "aggressive-defensive or self-asserting ten-
dency" in humor (p. 52), and suggested that, to be humorous, bisociation must be
accompanied by at least a tinge of aggression. It is likely an exaggeration to say that
all humor involves aggression, but it does seem accurate to say that it involves an emo-
tional experience that can be intensified by a range of emotion-arousing topics. Other
emotion-arousing topics besides aggression seem to work as well, including sex and
just plain exuberant fun. As Suls (1983) rather tentatively acknowledged, incongruity-
based cognitive theories appear to be theories of humor comprehension but not humor
appreciation. They describe the elements needed to understand and "get" the joke, but
they do not explain the emotional aspects that make the humorous experience so
enjoyable.
REVERSAL THEORY
Overview of the Theory
As noted in Chapter 1, humor is a playful, nonserious activity. Chimpanzees laugh
in the context of rough-and-tumble play and tickling, suggesting that laughter in our
common ancestry with chimpanzees was likely also associated with play. Laughter in
children also occurs most frequently in the context of play, and humor can be seen as
a way for adults to continue to engage in playful activities, using words and ideas as
playthings. However, surprisingly few of the early theorists recognized the essentially
playful nature of humor. One exception was Max Eastman (1936), who stated that
"humor is play . . . Therefore no definition of humor, no theory of wit, no explana-
tion of comic laughter, will ever stand up, which is not based upon the distinction
between playful and serious" (p. 15). He pointed out that, from reading the serious-
sounding descriptions of humor written by many of the past theorists, one would not
know that humor is a playful, lighthearted activity. More recently, Berlyne (1969)
noted the close connection between humor and play, and Gruner (1997) emphasized
the playful nature of humorous aggression. William Fry (1963) also viewed humor as
essentially a form of play.
The idea of humor as play is made explicit in the theory of humor proposed by
the Anglo-American psychologist Michael Apter (1982; Apter and Smith, 1977),
which is derived from a broader theory of motivation and personality called reversal
theory (Apter, 2001). Although not as well known as the other theories I have dis-
cussed, Apter's theory of humor is quite comprehensive, incorporating many of the
strengths of other theories, and can account for many of the research findings. I
include it here because I view it as a promising framework for an integrative theory
of humor.
What is play? According to Apter (1991), it is "a state of mind, a way of seeing
and being, a special mental 'set' towards the world and one's actions in it" (p. 3 1). To
THEORIES AND EARLY RESEARCH II
experience humor, we need to be in this playful state of mind. He suggested that play
is characterized by a "protective frame," which is a "psychological safety zone" that
we create to isolate ourselves from the serious concerns of the real world. In play,
stated Apter (p. 14):
we seem to create a small and manageable private world which we may, of course share with others;
and this world is one in which, temporarily at least, nothing outside has any significance, and into
which the outside world of real problems cannot properly impinge. If the "real world" does enter
in some way, it is transformed and sterilized in the process so that it is no longer truly itself, and
can do no harm.
Apter refers to this playful frame of mind as the paratelic state, to distinguish it from
the telic (goal-directed) state that underlies more serious activities. He suggests that
we reverse back and forth between these two states of mind at different times through-
out a typical day (hence the name reversal theory).
In the serious, telic state, one is concerned primarily with attaining important
goals, while the means to achieve the goals are secondary. In contrast, in the playful,
paratelic state, one's goals are of secondary importance, and the ongoing activities are
enjoyed for their own sake. The telic state is future-oriented, whereas the paratelic
state is present-oriented. With regard to the relation between arousal and emotion,
Apter rejected traditional optimal arousal theories such as Berlyne's (discussed earlier).
Instead, he suggested that arousal is experienced differently depending on whether
one is in the telic or the paratelic state. In the telic state, high arousal is unpleasant
(anxiety) and low arousal is preferred (relaxation), whereas in the paratelic state, low
arousal is unpleasant (boredom) and high arousal is enjoyable (excitement).
Apter (1992) described the many ways in which people seek to increase their level
of arousal in the paratelic state by means of exciting activities such as riding on roller
coasters, hang gliding, and taking other kinds of risks. Even normally negative emo-
tions can be experienced as exciting and enjoyable when one is in the paratelic state,
as demonstrated by the popularity of horror movies. As a paratelic activity, humor
also involves the enjoyment of arousal. According to Apter (1982), emotionally arous-
ing elements that may be present in humor, such as sexual and aggressive themes, are
a means of enhancing these pleasurable feelings of arousal and thus making the humor
seem funnier. Similarly, humor involving topics that would normally arouse feelings
of horror, revulsion, or disgust (such as humorous parodies of horror movies, "sick"
jokes, etc.) may be enjoyed because of the way these normally negative emotions add
to the pleasurable arousal when one is in a playful frame of mind. Thus, this theory
accounts for the "tendentious" aspects of humor in terms of their arousal-boosting
effects. It is also consistent with the research findings discussed earlier indicating that
greater levels of physiological arousal are associated with greater enjoyment of humor,
and that residual arousal from exposure to either positive or negative emotional mate-
rial increases subsequent enjoyment of humor.
Reversal theory also addresses the cognitive aspects of humor that are the focus
of incongruity theories. Apter (1982) used the concept of "synergy" to describe a cog-
nitive process in which two contradictory ideas or concepts about the same object are
REVERSAL THEORY
held in one's mind at the same time. This is very similar to Koestler's (1964) concept
of bisociation, discussed earlier. Like Koestler, Apter believes that this process occurs
in artistic creativity and aesthetic enjoyment, as well as in humor. In the playful,
paratelic state, according to Apter, synergies are found to be enjoyable and, like the
collative properties in Berlyne's theory, they are thought to increase arousal. Apter
disagrees with incongruity-resolution theories, suggesting instead that humor involves
the simultaneous recognition of incongruous or contradictory viewpoints, rather than
the removal (resolution) of an incongruity. He argues that the punch line of a joke
functions to create an incongruous synergy rather than resolving it.
Although humor and art both involve these kinds of cognitive synergies or incon-
gruities, Apter suggests that the difference between the two is that in humor one of
the simultaneously held viewpoints involves a diminishment or devaluation of the
object being considered, whereas in art the object is elevated. Thus, the incongruity
occurring in humor makes us see a person, object, action, or situation as less impor-
tant, dignified, serious, valuable, worthy of respect, etc., than what at first appeared.
Without diminishment, an incongruity or synergy is not funny. Although not men-
tioned in most incongruity theories, this diminishment idea was proposed in the nine-
teenth century by Herbert Spencer, who stated that "laughter naturally results only
when consciousness is unawares transferred from great things to small — only when
there is what we may call a descending incongruity" (from The Physiology of Laughter,
reprinted in Morreall, 1987, p. 108, emphasis in original). Thus, Apter accounts for
the aggressive elements frequently occurring in humor (which are the focus of supe-
riority/disparagement theories) by suggesting that disparagement in humor is one way
of creating diminishment. However, Apter disagrees with the view of superiority
theorists that humor always involves aggression or disparagement, since diminishment
does not need to be aggressive: it can simply be a perception of something as more
mundane or trivial than it first appeared.
In sum, Apter's theory proposes that humor involves the perception of a cogni-
tive synergy (i.e., two concurrent but contradictory interpretations of the same object),
in which the second interpretation of an object involves a diminishment relative to
the first, which is experienced in a playful, or paratelic, state of mind. The individual
is either already in this playful frame before encountering the humorous event, or the
event itself causes him or her to switch into the paratelic state. Environmental cues,
such as the laughter of other people or their amusing facial expressions may help to
induce the paratelic frame of mind. Arousal associated with emotional elements in the
joke or situation (and also induced by laughter itself) contributes to the experience of
enjoyment of the humor. Such arousal-increasing elements include surprise, sex,
violence, taboo topics, and disgust. Humor is also enhanced by multiple synergies
occurring simultaneously or within a short period of time, especially if they are inter-
connected and play off each other to produce further comic effects (A. S. Coulson,
2001).
Psychologists Robert Wyer and James Collins (1992; see also Wyer, 2004), at the
University of Illinois, have developed a "comprehension-elaboration theory" of
humor that reformulates and extends Apter's synergy concept in terms of social
THEORIES AND EARLY RESEARCH II
cognition using schema theory (which will be discussed in more detail in the next
chapter). They extended Apter's theory by examining the way people comprehend
humor within a social context and exploring information-processing factors such as
comprehension difficulty and cognitive elaboration. They suggested that humor is
enhanced when it requires a moderate degree of mental effort to understand it, rather
than being too easy or too difficult to understand, and when there is greater oppor-
tunity to elaborate the cognitive synergies involved. Wyer and Collins (1992, p. 667)
used the following joke to illustrate the ideas of reversal theory:
A young Catholic priest is walking through town when he is accosted by a prostitute. "How about
a quickie for twenty dollars?" she asks.
The priest, puzzled, shakes her off and continues on his way, only to be stopped by another pros-
titute. "Twenty dollars for a quickie," she offers. Again, he breaks free and goes up the street.
Later, as he is nearing his home in the country, he meets a nun. "Pardon me, sister," he asks, "but
what's a quickie?"
"Twenty dollars," she says, "The same as it is in town."
The synergy in this joke involves the sudden shift in interpretation brought about by
the punch line. The joke setup leads us to believe that the priest's question, "What's
a quickie?" should be interpreted as "What does 'a quickie' mean?' However, the nun's
reply introduces a different interpretation, namely, "How much does a quickie cost?"
There is also a second shift in interpretation from our perception of the woman as
being a nun to being a prostitute. In each of these contradictory perceptions, both
interpretations are held simultaneously. The diminishment criterion is satisfied by the
fact that the nun, who is first seen as a chaste and holy woman, turns out to be a pros-
titute on the side. Although not mentioned by Wyer and Collins, this joke also
includes a sexual theme that may add to its enjoyment. The contemplation of a usually
chaste nun as a sexually loose woman may be somewhat titillating. Any associated
increases in arousal would enhance the feelings of amusement.
Like Apter (1982), Wyer and Collins (1992) emphasized the importance of taking
the social context of humor into account, pointing out that humor is primarily a form
of social communication. For example, they explained the findings of research using
the weight judgment paradigm (discussed earlier) in terms of cognitive reinterpreta-
tion and diminishment in a social context. They suggested that participants in these
experiments, on picking up a weight that is much heavier or lighter than the previ-
ous ones, begin to infer that they are being tricked and that the experiment is not a
serious study of weight judgment after all. In other words, the participants reinter-
pret the entire social situation of the experiment, and not just the weights, perceiv-
ing it to be less important than they had originally viewed it to be, and this
reinterpretation elicits amusement. Wyer and Collins went on to discuss in some
detail the ways in which their elaboration of reversal theory can be used to explain all
types of humor, including conversational witticisms (irony, satire, teasing, puns), unin-
tentional humor (slips of the tongue, clumsy actions), and slapstick comedy, in addi-
tion to a wide variety of joke types. A detailed explanation of their theory and its
applications is outside the scope of the present discussion. I will return to some of
these ideas in the next chapter.
EMPIRICAL INVESTIGATIONS
EMPIRICAL INVESTIGATIONS
Many of the research findings discussed earlier can be viewed as supportive of the
reversal theory account of humor. As already noted, research indicating a positive
linear correlation between physiological arousal and enjoyment of humor (rather than
a curvilinear relationship) is more consistent with reversal theory than with optimal
arousal theories (e.g., Godkewitsch, 1976). The theory is also supported by "transfer
of excitation" research showing that residual arousal from both positive and negative
emotions can subsequently enhance the enjoyment of humor (Cantor et al., 1974).
The study by Shurcliff (1968), in which subjects who expected to remove a rat
from a cage found a rubber toy instead, is also consistent with reversal theory. The
discovery of the rubber toy leads to a reinterpretation of the situation that entails a
diminishment of its seriousness and importance as a scientific experiment, inducing a
shift to the paratelic mode, and the amount of anxiety-related arousal generated pre-
viously influences the degree to which the humor is enjoyed. Nerhardt's (1976) initial
difficulties in eliciting mirth with the weight judgment paradigm in the context of a
railroad station also point to the importance of the mental set of the participant for
humor to occur. Reversal theory would suggest that these subjects, engaged in the
goal-oriented activity of traveling from one place to another, were in the telic state,
and were unable to switch into the paratelic state that is necessary for humor.
A study by Mio and Graesser (1991), although designed to test disparagement
theory using metaphors, can also be viewed as a test of the diminishment hypothesis
in reversal theory. In this study, undergraduate students were asked to rate the
funniness of a number of metaphor pairs. One metaphor in each pair disparaged
the topic of the sentence, whereas the other one uplifted the topic. Consistent with
the diminishment hypothesis, the disparaging metaphors were perceived to be more
humorous than their uplifting counterparts.
In one of my own studies, I found a significant negative correlation between the
Telic Dominance Scale and several measures of sense of humor, indicating that people
who are more likely to be in the paratelic state at any given time also tend to laugh
and smile more frequently, to notice humorous aspects of the environment, to enjoy
humor, and to use humor in coping with stress (R. A. Martin, 1984). Similar results
were also found by Ruch (1994). Svebak and Apter (1987) also found that the pre-
sentation of humorous material was likely to induce the paratelic state even in indi-
viduals who normally tend to remain in the telic state. These findings support the
view that humor is associated with the playful paratelic state.
Wyer and Collins (1992) also described two studies that were designed to test
some of the hypotheses of reversal theory. In one of these, participants read stories
that could be interpreted in two different ways, one of which was less likely to be
identified spontaneously than the other. In each case, the less obvious interpretation
was more mundane, and therefore involved a diminishment of importance. One story,
for example, appeared to be about two people planning a murder, but it could also be
interpreted as a discussion of the difficulties encountered in opening a pickle jar.
Another story appeared to be the comments of a man making love to a woman, but
THEORIES AND EARLY RESEARCH II
could also be interpreted as washing a dog. In different versions of the story, cues
were inserted to make the subordinate theme more or less obvious. The participants
were instructed either to read the stories for understanding (as they would read a mag-
azine article) or to read them with the goal of evaluating their humor, and all subjects
were later asked to rate their fimniness.
As predicted by reversal theory, the participants were more likely to rate the
stories as amusing when statements activating the subordinate theme were included,
and this difference was more pronounced in the story comprehension condition than
in the humor evaluation condition. The latter rinding, which seems counterintuitive,
is explained by reversal theory on the basis of the motivational state of the subjects.
Those who were instructed to read the stories with a goal in mind were more likely
to be in the serious, goal-oriented telic state, even though this goal involved making
a humor judgment. They would therefore be less likely to respond to humor than
would those who read the stories without a specific goal, an activity that is more com-
patible with the playful, paratelic state. Incidentally, these findings raise questions
about much of the humor appreciation research conducted over several decades, in
which subjects have been instructed to evaluate the fimniness of various stimuli, where
a serious telic state of mind may have interfered with the enjoyment of the humor.
This may explain in part why fimniness ratings have usually been quite low in such
research.
In a second experiment, Wyer and Collins (1992) presented participants with vari-
ants of the "quickie" joke about the priest and nun. In the different versions, they
selectively removed one or the other of the alternative interpretations of the priest's
question and of the nun's identity. In addition, in some versions, the second inter-
pretation of the nun as a prostitute replaced the first (as in incongruity-resolution
theory), whereas in other versions the two contradictory interpretations (nun and
prostitute) continued to apply simultaneously. Differences in participants' funniness
ratings of the different joke versions supported the prediction that the effects on
funniness of the two shifts in meaning to more mundane interpretations were inde-
pendent and additive. However, no support was found for the prediction that
the simultaneous retention of the two interpretations would be funnier than the
replacement of one interpretation by the other. Further research with a wider range
of humor stimuli is needed to provide more definitive tests of this reversal theory
hypothesis.
Evaluation
The account of humor provided by reversal theory integrates many of the ideas
from the other theories that I have discussed. Like psychoanalytic and superiority the-
ories, it provides an explanation for aggressive, sexual, and other emotional elements
in humor. These components are seen as functioning to increase arousal, which is
experienced as enjoyable and exciting when one is in the playful frame of mind asso-
ciated with humor. As well, this theory explains the enjoyment of humor and people's
strong motivation for engaging in it in terms of the enjoyment of play. The theory
CONCLUSION
appears to be more consistent with research findings on the role of arousal in humor
appreciation than are optimal arousal theories such as Berlyne's. With further devel-
opments of the theory proposed by Wyer and Collins (1992) and by Wyer (2004), it
also provides a framework for understanding cognitive processes in many different
forms of everyday humor and not just jokes. Unlike most of the other theories that
we have discussed, this theory also focuses more explicitly on the social context in
which humor occurs. Thus, it opens the door to examinations of humor as a form of
interpersonal communication from the perspective of social psychology (which I will
explore in Chapter 5).
The reversal theory of humor also provides an account of the role of humor in
coping with stress (Svebak and Martin, 1997). The capacity of humorous synergies to
induce the paratelic state may make it possible for stressful situations to be experi-
enced as challenges to be approached in a playful way rather than as serious threats
(R. A. Martin, Kuiper, Olinger, and Dobbin, 1987). In addition, the diminishment
aspect of humorous synergies means that humor may be used to reframe anxiety-
arousing events or problems as less threatening than they first appear (Kuiper et al.,
1993). Although reversal theory is not as widely known among humor researchers, it
offers a number of hypotheses that are deserving of further investigation.
More generally, the view of humor as play reminds us that humor is a nonseri-
ous, playful activity that differs from more serious modes of thinking. Many of the
theories of humor seem to forget this fact, describing the cognitive processes involved
in humor comprehension as though they had to do with serious information pro-
cessing. A play view of humor suggests that jokes may be viewed as a way of playing
with cognitive structures and mechanisms, which have evolved in humans for the nor-
mally "serious" purpose of making sense and surviving in the world, but in humor are
temporarily being manipulated "for fun." Both the teller and the listener of a joke are
collaborating in a playful activity, in which multiple interpretations of events are acti-
vated and elaborated in an enjoyable way by introducing an incongruous element into
the narrative. In more spontaneous forms of humor, people may play with language
and ideas or use humor to playfully tease one another. However, although humor is
playful and nonserious, this does not mean that it does not have serious functions.
For example, humorous teasing may be a way of expressing disapproval or criticism
to another person in a way that would be difficult to do using a serious mode of dis-
course. If the criticism is not well received, one can always say that one was "just
joking." These sorts of interpersonal functions of humor will be examined in more
detail in Chapter 5.
CONCLUSION
Each of the theories that we have examined in these two chapters contributes a
useful perspective, highlighting certain aspects of humor. By combining elements
from all of the theories, we obtain a more complete understanding of this multi-
faceted phenomenon. Psychoanalytic theory calls our attention to the predominance
THEORIES AND EARLY RESEARCH II
of aggressive and sexual themes in many jokes, the feelings of emotional pleasure and
enjoyment that are engendered by humor, and the strong motivation that most people
therefore experience for engaging in it. It also suggests that some of the elements con-
tributing to our enjoyment of humor may be outside our conscious awareness. Supe-
riority/disparagement theories emphasize the social and emotional aspects of humor
and call attention to its paradoxical nature, combining both prosocial and aggressive
elements. This approach also provides a theoretical basis for views of humor as a way
of asserting a sense of victory over the people and situations that threaten us, mastery
over the circumstances of life that can otherwise oppress us, and liberation from life's
constraints.
Arousal theories underscore the view that humor represents a complex mind-body
interaction of cognition and emotion that is rooted in the biological substrates of
our brain and nervous system. Incongruity theories shed light on the cognitive-
perceptual processes involved in humor, the way it causes us to view people, situa-
tions, and events from the perspective of two or more incongruous and seemingly
incompatible perspectives at the same time. Finally, the reversal theory perspective
combines many of the elements of the other theories, emphasizing that humor is a
form of play in which incongruities are enjoyed for their own sake in the context of
our interactions with other people. It also highlights the diverse ways we experience
humor, including jokes, nonverbal humor, conversational witticisms, and the humor-
ous outlook on the adversities of life that forms the basis of humor as a coping
mechanism.
Our review of the early psychological research on humor provides an introduc-
tion to the empirical methods that have been used by researchers to answer age-old
philosophical questions about humor. Based on the findings of these early studies, as
well as theoretical and methodological developments in other areas of psychology, the
theories and research methods used by humor researchers have evolved over the years.
Some of the ideas and methodologies of these early studies now seem outdated, and
many of the answers they provided are still only tentative, but some patterns have
emerged. These studies set the stage for subsequent research, guiding the ongoing
questions and pointing to potentially useful topics of investigation. In the following
chapters, I will discuss more recent developments in the sorts of questions, methods,
and findings of humor research in each of the branches of psychology.
CHAPTER 4
The Cognitive Psychology
of Humor
We saw in Chapter 1 that humor is a
form of play, comprising a social context, a cognitive process, and an emotional
response that is expressed through laughter. In this chapter, we focus on the cogni-
tive process, the mental events leading to the perception of incongruity that is the
basis of humor. What are the mental processes involved in "getting a joke" or per-
ceiving a situation or event to be funny? In addition, we will examine ways that humor
in turn affects other cognitive processes, particularly memory and creative thinking.
Are we likely to remember humorous information better than serious information?
Does experiencing humor cause people to think more creatively?
These sorts of questions fall into the domain of cognitive psychology, which
has been denned as "the study of human mental processes and their role in thinking,
feeling, and behaving" (Kellogg, 1995, p. 4). Cognitive psychologists use experimen-
tal methods to study how the mind works. Although they recognize that the brain
does not function exactly like an electronic computer, they often find it useful to
employ a computer analogy in conceptualizing mental processes. Thus, they take an
information processing approach to understand how information is taken in through
our sensory organs, encoded, stored and retrieved from memory, and used in the
comprehension and production of language, problem solving, creativity, decision
making, and reasoning. In short, cognitive psychology is concerned with mental
representations of meaning and the mental processes that operate on those
representations.
83
THE COGNITIVE PSYCHOLOGY OF HUMOR
For the most part, cognitive psychologists have not taken much interest in the
study of humor. Indeed, an examination of the subject indexes of cognitive psychol-
ogy textbooks reveals almost no references to humor, laughter, or related topics. This
is because most cognitive psychologists tend to be interested in more basic mental
processes such as attention, perception, memory, and so on. However, one subarea
within this field where there is some interest in humor is psycholinguistics. As the
name suggests, this is the study of cognitive processes involved in language compre-
hension and production. Since much humor is based on language, psycholinguistics
is a natural domain for the cognitive study of humor. In particular, some researchers
within this field who study nonliteral language (e.g., metaphor) have been interested
in humorous types of nonliteral language such as irony (e.g., Colston, Giora, and Katz,
2000; Giora, Fein, and Schwartz, 1998) and sarcasm (e.g., Gibbs, 1986; A. N. Katz,
Blasko, and Kazmerski, 2004).
Cognitive psychology is part of a broader interdisciplinary enterprise known as
cognitive science, which also includes some branches of neuroscience, computer
science (artificial intelligence), and linguistics. All of these disciplines have also made
important contributions to the study of humor, applying their particular research
methods and theoretical approaches. It would be difficult to review the psychology of
humor without also touching on the contributions of these other disciplines. In this
chapter, I will therefore also briefly review some of the contributions to a cognitive
understanding of humor from the disciplines of linguistics and computer science, and
I will explore the contributions of neuroscience in Chapter 6.
We saw in Chapter 3 that cognitive theories of humor have been proposed by a
number of philosophers since the eighteenth century (e.g., Schopenhauer). During
the 1970s, several psychological theories were developed that attempted to provide
more rigorous and testable formulations of these ideas (e.g., Rothbart, 1976; Shultz,
1976; Suls, 1972), and these stimulated a number of psychological investigations with
many interesting findings (e.g., Deckers and Salais, 1983; Shultz, 1974b; Wicker et
al., 1981). However, these theories were still rather vague and not clearly specified.
Over the past two decades, there has been a flurry of renewed theoretical activity
coming particularly from scholars in linguistics (e.g., Attardo, 1994; Raskin, 1985),
but also in psycholinguistics (e.g., Giora, 1991) and computer science (e.g., Ritchie,
2004). These formulations, based on theoretical, empirical, and methodological
advances in other areas of their respective disciplines, have generated new hypotheses
about cognitive aspects of humor that have only begun to be investigated by psy-
chologists (e.g., Vaid, Hull, Heredia, Gerkens, and Martinez, 2003). These advances
will hopefully stimulate further interest among psychologists in the study of cogni-
tive processes in humor.
In this chapter, I will first review ways in which cognitive theorists have made use
of concepts from schema theory to understand how we mentally process humorous
incongruities. Then I will briefly look at some of the schema-based theories proposed
in recent years by linguists. I will then discuss some of the research methods that have
been developed by cognitive psychologists to study schemas and related cognitive
processes, and will describe some applications of these methods to the study of how
HUMOR, INCONGRUITY, AND SCHEMAS
we understand humorous information, such as jokes and ironic statements. After this
overview of research on cognitive mechanisms and processes in humor comprehen-
sion, I will discuss research that has looked at the effects of humor on other aspects
of cognition, particularly memory and creativity. Next, I will discuss the contributions
of artificial intelligence researchers in the field of computer science. Finally, I will
comment on the implications of a view of humor as a form of cognitive play.
HUMOR, INCONGRUITY, AND SCHEMAS
As we saw in the last chapter, cognitively oriented theorists and researchers generally
view some type of incongruity as being a defining characteristic of humor. Arthur
Koestler's (1964) concept ofbisociation is an early formulation of incongruity, in which
a situation, person, event, or idea is simultaneously perceived from the perspective of
two self-consistent but normally incompatible or disparate frames of reference. Apter's
(1982) concept of cognitive synergy has a similar meaning: two incompatible or even
contradictory interpretations of the same object or event are active in the mind at the
same time. Typically, humor begins with one interpretation of the situation, and then
a second contradictory interpretation is suddenly activated.
Theorists have debated about whether incongruity alone is sufficient for humor
(Nerhardt, 1977), or whether incongruity must also be resolved in some way for it to
be funny (Shultz, 1972; Suls, 1972). As we saw in Chapter 3, research evidence sug-
gests that incongruity-resolution theories may apply to certain types of jokes, but do
not appear to account for all forms of humor (e.g., Nerhardt, 1977). Some theorists
have also suggested that the incongruity must occur suddenly (Suls, 1983), must take
place in an emotionally pleasant, safe, and nonthreatening context (Rothbart, 1976),
must involve an extreme or bizarre discrepancy (Berlyne, 1972), or must be perceived
in a playful, nonserious frame of mind (Apter, 1982). Wyer and Collins (1992), fol-
lowing Apter (1982), suggested that, for an incongruity to be funny, the second inter-
pretation that is activated must involve diminishment, that is, the situation or event
must be viewed as less important, valuable, or admirable than the view provided by
the initial interpretation.
Schemas, Frames, and Scripts
How might these concepts of incongruity be understood from the perspective of cog-
nitive science? Cognitive psychologists have conducted a great deal of research on the
way knowledge is represented and organized in our minds. These studies suggest that
information is organized in knowledge structures called schemas (Bartlett, 1932;
Mandler, 1979; Rumelhart and Ortony, 1977). The concept of a schema was origi-
nally based on the data structures used in programming languages such as Pascal and
Lisp that were commonly employed in artificial intelligence research (Ritchie, 2004).
A schema is a dynamic mental representation that enables us to build mental models
of the world. Mandler (1979) stated that a schema "is formed on the basis of past
THE COGNITIVE PSYCHOLOGY OF HUMOR
experience with objects, scenes, or events and consists of a set of (usually unconscious)
expectations about what things look like and/or the order in which they occur"
(p. 263).
Schemas describe the general characteristics of an object or event and contain
variables or slots that can assume different values in particular instances. For example,
a schema for birds would include variables such as the types of wings, feet, beaks,
tails, and bodies, which may be instantiated in a number of ways in individual birds.
Many different kinds of birds all fit the general schema, with different values for the
different variables. The variables often contain default values that represent the
prototypical characteristic of the object or event. When we catch a glimpse of a bird
or hear about a bird in a story, the schema for birds is activated, and, unless we are
given information to the contrary, we expect this particular bird to conform to the
default values. The acceptable values of variables in a given schema have certain
limits. If we see a drawing of a bird with wings that look like airplane propellers, this
would not fit the expected values of the bird schema, and would therefore be an
incongruity, something that "does not compute" with respect to our mental model of
birds.
Frames (Minsky, 1977) and scripts (Abelson, 1981; Schank and Abelson, 1977)
are particular types of schemas that relate to knowledge about the physical environ-
ment and routine activities, respectively. For example, Schank and Abelson (1977)
described the restaurant script, which organizes information about the normal
sequence of events involved in going to a restaurant (sitting at a table, ordering from
a menu, being served, eating, paying the bill, leaving the restaurant, etc.). When we
hear a narrative about someone going to a restaurant, this script is activated and it
leads us to expect certain activities that are normally associated with the script. This
also makes it possible for the narrator to leave out many details that we automatically
fill in as defaults.
The script also tells us what details of the narrative are appropriate and relevant,
and how to evaluate people's actions. As Wyer (2004, p. 199) noted, if we heard that
a man went to a restaurant and proceeded to take off his clothes and start playing a
guitar, this does not fit with the expected values in our restaurant script, and would
be perceived as incongruous. This would stimulate us to reassess the situation and
perhaps modify the script or seek another script that might account for the informa-
tion. For example, we might surmise that the restaurant was in a nudist colony and
the man was an entertainer rather than a patron of the restaurant.
Applications of Schema Theory to Humor
These concepts of schemas, frames, and scripts can be used to explain the nature of
incongruity in humor, and a number of psychological and linguistic theories of humor,
based on these ideas, have been proposed (e.g., Norrick, 1986; Raskin, 1985; Wyer
and Collins, 1992). In general, these theories suggest that, while we are hearing the
setup of a joke, a schema (or script) is activated to enable us to make sense of the
incoming information. However, information in the joke punch line does not fit with
HUMOR, INCONGRUITY, AND SCHEMAS
the schema, causing us to search for another schema that will make better sense. This
second schema typically gives an altogether different (and even contradictory) inter-
pretation of the situation, rather than just a slightly modified perspective. The second
script does not completely replace the first one, however, and so the two are activated
simultaneously. This simultaneous activation of two incompatible scripts is the essence
of humorous incongruity and is experienced as enjoyable and amusing. Different
schema-based theories provide somewhat different accounts of these processes, and
some also attempt to account for non-joke-related humor, such as conversational
witticisms and unintentional humor, as well as jokes.
As an example of a schema-based psychological theory relating to social cogni-
tion, Robert Wyer and James Collins (1992) proposed a comprehension-elaboration
theory of humor eli citation (see also Wyer, 2004, for farther discussion of the
model in the context of a broader theory of social cognition). They suggested that
humor involves the simultaneous activation of two different schemas to understand
the same situation or event. In addition, humor is elicited only if the second schema
to be activated produces an interpretation that is diminished in value or importance
relative to that of the initial schema. Thus, humor always involves reinterpreting an
action or situation as being less admirable and more trivial (i.e., less serious) than it
first seemed.
In addition, Wyer and Collins proposed that the elicited humor is greatest when
an intermediate amount of time and effort is required to identify and apply the con-
cepts necessary to activate the alternative schema. If it is too difficult or too easy to
find the second schema, less humor will be elicited. The amount of humor elicited
also depends on the amount of cognitive elaboration that is generated concerning the
event and its implications. Cognitive elaboration has to do with the degree to which
the activated schemas play back and forth on each other, eliciting further concepts
and mental imagery. The more cognitive elaboration is elicited by the humorous
event, the more it will be enjoyed and perceived to be funny. Wyer and Collins also
discussed the social context in which humor occurs, noting that expectations, norms,
motives, and information-processing goals relating to speaker and listener roles need
to be considered in explaining humor elicitation. They showed how the theory can
be applied to account for humor not only in jokes and funny narratives, but also in
witticisms, ironic comments, and fortuitous events that occur spontaneously in social
situations.
Thus, the schema-based cognitive theory proposed by Wyer and Collins is a very
comprehensive one that is intended to account for all types of humor and not just
jokes. It offers numerous interesting hypotheses for future research. While many of
their hypotheses are consistent with previous research findings, others still need to
be tested empirically. In particular, there has been very little research so far address-
ing the hypotheses about non-joke-related humor elicited spontaneously in social
situations.
One of their hypotheses that has not been supported is the idea that the funniest
jokes are the ones that take an intermediate amount of time to process, whereas jokes
that are too easy or too difficult to understand are less amusing. This would suggest
THE COGNITIVE PSYCHOLOGY OF HUMOR
a curvilinear (inverted- U) relationship between difficulty of comprehension and fun-
niness. Contrary to this view, Peter Derks and his colleagues at the College of William
and Mary found a strong negative linear correlation between participants' ratings of
the difficulty of comprehension of a series of jokes and their rated funniness, with no
curvilinear component (Derks, Staley, and Haselton, 1998). Thus, the easier a joke
was to understand, the funnier it was rated to be.
Similarly, two more recent studies reported by William Cunningham and Peter
Derks (2005) showed that the more quickly participants were able to identify para-
graphs as being jokes, the funnier they found them to be. These authors suggested
that humor comprehension should be viewed as an automatic, expert skill that involves
implicit and sophisticated knowledge of language and multiple meanings. Conse-
quently, the more automatically accessible a humorous message is (due to its personal
relevance and the expertise of the listener), the more amusing and enjoyable it is.
Although these findings suggest that some modifications of Wyer and Collins' theory
are needed, they are not a serious threat to the theory as a whole.
In Chapter 3 I described research on incongruity using the weight judgment
paradigm, in which humor is elicited when research participants lift weights that are
greatly discrepant from those in a series of preceding trials. Lambert Deckers and
Robert Buttram (1990) reconceptualized the weight judgment paradigm in terms of
schema theory, suggesting that the initial weight judgments cause a schema to be built
up, and the final weight is perceived as an incongruity with respect to this schema.
They also drew parallels between the mental processes involved in the weight
judgment task and the processing of jokes. They suggested that two kinds of incon-
gruity may generate humor: incongruity between an expected value and the perceived
value of a variable within a single schema (as in the weight judgment paradigm),
and incongruity between two different schemas (as occurs in most jokes). In either
case, they argued, it is incongruity that produces humor, and not resolution of
incongruity.
Wyer and Collins (1992), however, conceptualized the incongruity occurring in
the weight judgment paradigm somewhat differently. Taking a broader social cogni-
tion perspective, rather than focusing only on the discrepancy between the expected
weight and the observed weight, these authors discussed the paradigm in terms of the
schemas presumably involved in the participants' perceptions of the experimental
situation as a whole. Initially, subjects view the experiment as a serious, scientific
enterprise, but when they encounter the extremely light or heavy weight, they begin
to suspect that the experimenter may be playing a trick on them. After having them
compare a number of barely discernible differences in weights, why is the experi-
menter suddenly asking them to test a weight that is so obviously much heavier or
lighter? A new schema concerning the situation is evoked ("Could this be a joke?"),
and this schema is enough to trigger a smile or chuckle. In Apter's (1982) terms, this
may also cause them to momentarily shift from a serious, scientific mode into a playful
(paratelic) mode. Thus, Wyer and Collins' approach takes into account the broader
social context of all humor, instead of focusing narrowly on the immediate joke or
stimulus as have most past researchers and theorists. These competing hypotheses
LINGUISTIC APPROACHES TO HUMOR 8*
about the incongruities occurring in the weight judgment paradigm could be tested
in further research, perhaps using some of the schema-based methodologies that I will
describe shortly.
LINGUISTIC APPROACHES TO HUMOR
In recent years, a considerable amount of work has been done by linguists in the devel-
opment of formal theories of humor (for a review, see Attardo, 1994). Not surpris-
ingly, linguists who are interested in humor focus on types of humor that are
communicated through language, rather than nonverbal forms like practical jokes or
slapstick comedy. Linguistics comprises a number of subfields, including phonology
(the study of speech sounds), syntax (grammatical rules that specify the acceptable
form of sentences), semantics (language meaning), and pragmatics (rules for appro-
priate social use and interpretation of language in context). The areas that are most
relevant to humor research are semantics and pragmatics.
Linguists working in the field of semantics are interested in many of the issues
that I have been discussing concerning the way humorous narratives ("texts") are
processed, understood, and interpreted as funny (e.g., Norrick, 1986; Raskin, 1985).
In the area of pragmatics, linguists are interested in the way humor is communicated
in everyday conversation and the functions of humorous communications, such as
joke-telling, teasing, and irony, in interpersonal interactions (e.g., Graham, Papa, and
Brooks, 1992; Norrick, 2003). I will touch briefly on pragmatics later in this chapter,
and will examine it in more detail in Chapter 5 in relation to the social psychology
of humor. In this section I will focus particularly on a linguistic theory from the field
of semantics.
The script-based semantic theory developed by linguists Victor Raskin, at Purdue
University, and Salvatore Attardo, at Youngstown State University (Attardo and
Raskin, 1991; Raskin, 1985), is the most well-developed linguistic theory of humor
and the one that is best known to psychologists. This theory attempts to model the
comprehension of verbal humor, with a particular focus on jokes. The theory incor-
porates ideas about scripts (discussed above) and was also influenced by Noam
Chomksy's (1957, 1971) concepts of transformational generative grammars for relat-
ing the deep structure, or underlying meaning, of a text to its surface structure (the
actual words that are used). Raskin's (1985) original Semantic Script Theory of Humor
(SSTH) is meant to provide a formal model of humor competence (i.e., how can a
text be recognized as humorous?).
The goal of this theory, then, is to provide a model of a hypothetical
information-processing system that is capable of making sense of a humorous text,
but not necessarily the way humans actually do it. In theory, the model could even-
tually be turned into a computer program for processing humor. Thus, in the lin-
guistics approach, the concern is not so much whether the theory describes actual
human information processing, and therefore linguists typically do not conduct exper-
iments to test their theories on human subjects. Instead, they use logical reasoning to
THE COGNITIVE PSYCHOLOGY OF HUMOR
see whether the theory is internally coherent and whether it accounts for a wide range
of text examples (i.e., jokes). The ideal test would be to implement it in a computer
program and demonstrate that it is capable of distinguishing between humorous and
nonhumorous scripts.
Raskin's theory conceives of scripts as graphs with lexical nodes and semantic links
between nodes. Scripts are assumed to be nested within scripts and, in theory, all the
scripts of the language make up a single continuous graph, forming a multidimen-
sional semantic network that contains all the information a speaker has about his or
her culture. Words in a sentence are thought to evoke the script or scripts with which
they are associated. The theory also assumes a set of combinatorial rules for com-
bining all the possible meanings of the scripts that are evoked by a text, discarding
those that do not yield a coherent reading, and coming up with an overall, coherent
meaning of the text.
Based on these concepts, Raskin (1985, p. 99) stated the main hypothesis of his
theory as follows:
A text can be characterized as a single-joke-carrying text if both of the [following] conditions . . .
are satisfied: (i) The text is compatible, fully or in part, with two different scripts; and (ii) the two
scripts with which the text is compatible are opposite in a special sense . . .
Thus, when an individual is attempting to understand a joke, a mental script is acti-
vated to make sense of the events that are described in the joke setup. However, the
punch line of the joke introduces elements that are not compatible with that original
script, triggering a switch from one script to another. The punch line makes the lis-
tener backtrack and realize that a different interpretation (i.e., an alternative script)
was possible from the beginning. In order for the text to be viewed as humorous, this
second, overlapping script must be opposite to the first. There are three general ways
in which the scripts may be in opposition to one another: actual versus nonactual,
normal versus abnormal, or possible versus impossible. At a more concrete level, script
oppositions may be manifested in terms of such pairs as good versus bad, life versus
death, obscene versus nonobscene, money versus no money, high stature versus low
stature, clean versus dirty, intelligent versus unintelligent, and so on.
Raskin used the following joke to illustrate how the model works:
"Is the doctor at home?" the patient asked in his bronchial whisper. "No," the doctor's young and
pretty wife whispered in reply. "Come right in."
According to Raskin's theory, the first part of this joke evokes a standard "doctor"
script (which is presumably stored in the listener's semantic network) in which a
patient presents himself at a doctor's residence to be treated for an illness that causes
him to have a hoarse voice, and is told that the doctor is not there. However, the
doctor's wife's invitation for the patient to enter the house anyway does not fit with
the "doctor" script, so the listener must backtrack and reevaluate the text. The infor-
mation that the doctor's wife is young and pretty and that she is inviting the patient
into her house when her husband is away activates a different (i.e., "lover") script.
Both the "doctor" script and the "lover" script are compatible with the text, and these
LINGUISTIC APPROACHES TO HUMOR
two scripts are opposed to one another on the sex versus no-sex basis. Consequently,
the joke fulfills the requirements of the theory and is evaluated as humorous. Note
that Raskin's theory is more consistent with Koestler's and Apter's ideas of "bisocia-
tion" and "cognitive synergy" than with Shultz's and Suls' incongruity-resolution
theories because, in Raskin's theory, both scripts are activated at the same time, rather
than one replacing the other.
Attardo and Raskin (1991) further extended and revised Raskin's original SSTH
into a broader linguistic theory, which they called the General Theory of Verbal
Humor (GTVH), which addresses other areas of linguistics such as pragmatics and
discourse analysis, in addition to semantics. This revised theory is a model of joke
representation, which posits a hierarchical arrangement of six Knowledge Resources
(KRs), or hypothetical databases, that are thought to be involved in the cognitive rep-
resentation and analysis of humorous texts. The six KRs, in order from most abstract
to most concrete, are: Script Oppositions (SO), Logical Mechanisms (LM), Situations
(SI), Targets (TA), Narrative Strategies (NS), and Language (LA). Raskin's original
SSTH theory corresponds to the SO component, and is thus just one subset of this
broader theory. LM refers to the "joke techniques" or "pseudo-logic" used to activate
the alternate script in a joke. These include such mechanisms as figure-ground rever-
sal, juxtaposition, analogy, parallelism, and faulty reasoning. SI refers to the people,
objects, activities, and so on, involved in the particular joke. TA (which are not nec-
essarily present in all jokes) refers to the "butt" or victim of the joke. NS refers to the
"genre" or format of the joke (e.g., riddle or expository text). Finally, LA is the actual
wording of the joke.
Attardo (1997) discussed the relationship between the GTVH and traditional
incongruity-resolution theories of humor. He argued for a "three-stage" (setup-
incongruity-resolution) rather than a "two-stage" (incongruity-resolution) model of
joke comprehension. Attardo suggested that incongruity has to do with the SO com-
ponent, resolution corresponds to the LM component, and setup refers to the overlap
between the two scripts. Note, however, that this formulation is different from tradi-
tional incongruity-resolution theories, since it views the resolution as coming before
the incongruity, that is, the logical mechanism (which Attardo identifies with resolu-
tion) activates the alternative script, which, along with the initial script, creates the
incongruity. Thus, the GTVH (like the SSTH that it subsumes) assumes that humor
arises from the concurrent activation of two incompatible scripts, and is therefore
similar to the views of Koestler (1964), Apter (1982), and Wyer (2004) and different
from the incongruity-resolution models of Shultz (1976) and Suls (1972), which
posit that humor is elicited only after the incongruity has been eliminated (i.e.,
resolved).
Attardo, Hempelmann, and Di Maio (2002) developed further the concept of
logical mechanisms, and proposed formulations of the model using graph theory and
set theory. Attardo (1998) extended the GTVH to allow for the analysis of humorous
texts that are longer than jokes. To do this, he introduced a variety of additional con-
cepts such as jab and punch lines, macro- and micro-narratives, levels of narratives,
strands of lines, stacks of strands, and intertextual jokes. (An explanation of these
THE COGNITIVE PSYCHOLOGY OF HUMOR
concepts is beyond the scope of the present discussion.) Attardo also demonstrated
how this more complex model could be applied by using it to analyze a segment of a
television sitcom. Thus, an attempt has been made to extend the theory so that it can
account for spontaneous conversational humor in addition to canned jokes.
Although this brief overview certainly does not do justice to linguistic theories of
humor, it should give readers from psychology some sense of the kinds of theories
that have been developed by linguists, which could potentially be used as a source of
testable hypotheses for psychological research. For example, psychologist Willibald
Ruch teamed up with Attardo and Raskin (Ruch, Attardo, and Raskin, 1993) to
conduct an empirical study designed to test some aspects of the GTVH. In particu-
lar, they evaluated the hypothesis that subjects' perceptions of similarities between
pairs of jokes will decrease in a linear fashion as the jokes differ from each other at
successively higher levels of the KR hierarchy. Research participants were presented
with pairs of jokes differing from one another at various levels of the hierarchy. For
example, two jokes might be identical in every way except that they involved different
script oppositions, or different logical mechanisms. The participants were instructed
to rate how similar the jokes were in each pair. In general, the results conformed to
predictions, with greater similarities being found between jokes that differed at lower
levels of the hierarchy. However, there were some inconsistencies in the exact order-
ing of the KRs, particularly in the case of LM, suggesting that some modification of
this aspect of the theory may be required.
Another empirical investigation making use of the GTVH was reported by Italian
psychologist Giovannantonio Forabosco (1994), who conducted two experiments
examining the effects of seriality on joke appreciation. In particular, he was interested
in determining whether, when presented with a series of jokes, people find particular
jokes to be less funny if they are similar to ones that they have already seen. Using
the GTVH framework, the degree of similarity between jokes was manipulated by
varying the number of knowledge resources that they shared. As predicted, the more
similar a group of jokes were, the more they exhibited a seriality effect, such that those
presented later in the series were rated as being less fanny than those presented earlier.
These investigations provide examples of how psychological research methods might
be used to test linguistic theories of humor, as well as how linguistic theories might
be used to inform psychological research.
PSYCHOLOGICAL APPROACHES TO THE STUDY
OF SCHEMAS IN HUMOR
Semantic Distance
Cognitive psychologists have developed a number of experimental techniques for
investigating hypotheses derived from schema theories. An early approach made use
of the idea of semantic distances between words or concepts based on semantic
differential ratings. This methodology was pioneered by Charles Osgood and his
PSYCHOLOGICAL APPROACHES TO THE STUDY OF SCHEMAS IN HUMOR 92
colleagues as a means of exploring the way meaning is represented in the mind
(Osgood, Suci, and Tannenbaum, 1957; Snider and Osgood, 1969). It involved having
a large number of research participants rate particular words or concepts on a series
of rating scales, each scale representing a dimension between a pair of adjectives with
opposite meanings (e.g., hot-cold, fast-slow, likable-unlikable). These ratings were
then factor analyzed to identify a smaller number of basic dimensions (factors) that
capture most of the variance in the ratings.
Using ratings of a large number of concepts and many different samples of par-
ticipants, Osgood and his colleagues repeatedly found three basic orthogonal factors,
which he labeled Activity (active-passive), Evaluative (good-bad), and Potency
(strong- weak). These three factors appear to be basic dimensions by which people
mentally organize meanings that they attach to a wide range of concepts. The factors
can be conceptualized as dimensions of a hypothetical three-dimensional cognitive
"space" in which people store words and concepts in their minds. The factor load-
ings of a particular word or concept can be used to identify where the concept is stored
in this space. Concepts that are similar in meaning are stored closely together in this
hypothetical semantic space, since they have similar loadings on the three factors,
whereas those that are quite different in meaning have different loadings and are
stored at more distant locations. Thus, semantic distances between pairs of words or
concepts can be quantified by means of the difference in their loadings on the seman-
tic differential factors. This technique provided cognitive researchers a method for
investigating the way knowledge or meanings of concepts are organized in people's
minds.
This method was applied to the study of humor by Michael Godkewitsch (1974),
at the University of Toronto, using the semantic distances between pairs of words as
a method of quantifying incongruity. Participants were presented with a number of
adjective-noun pairs and asked to rate them for funniness and wittiness. The degree
of smiling and laughter of participants was also observed. The semantic distance
between the words in each pair was computed on the basis of their loadings on the
semantic differential factors. As predicted by incongruity theory, adjective-noun pairs
that were more discrepant from one another in semantic space were judged to be
funnier and evoked more smiles. For example, the adjective-noun pair "happy child,"
in which both words load similarly on the semantic differential factors, was not seen
as very funny. In contrast, "wise egg," with an intermediate distance, was funnier, and
"hot poet," with a high semantic distance, was even funnier. Although, admittedly, the
humor evoked by these word pairs was not very great, it was systematically related to
the semantic distance between the two words in each pair, providing support for
incongruity theories of humor.
Tim Hillson and I also employed a semantic distance procedure to model the
concept of resolution as well as incongruity in such simple verbal stimuli (Hillson and
Martin, 1994). We hypothesized that word pairs that are quite distant on some dimen-
sions of semantic space (incongruity) but are also quite close on other dimensions
(resolution of incongruity) might be funnier than those that are either distant or close
on all dimensions. We employed a methodology, called the domain-interaction
THE COGNITIVE PSYCHOLOGY OF HUMOR
approach, which had previously been used in the study of metaphors by other
researchers (e.g., Trick and Katz, 1986). As humor stimuli, we used simple metaphor-
like statements combining two concepts in the form "A is the B of A's domain" (e.g.,
"George Bush is the buzzard of world leaders"). The domains used were actors, world
leaders, birds, makes of cars, foods, and magazines, and within each domain we used
four nouns (e.g., Sylvester Stallone and Woody Allen were two of the actors).
Semantic differential ratings provided by a group of subjects on these nouns and
domain names were factor analyzed, yielding four factors. We identified two of the
factors as domain-distinguishing (i.e., different nouns within a given domain were
found to have very similar loadings on these two factors, while nouns from different
domains had more distant loadings). The other two factors were identified as domain-
insensitive (i.e., different nouns within the same domain could have quite different
loadings on these two factors). On the basis of these factor loadings, two types of
semantic distance between the nouns were computed: a wi thin-domain distance (using
the domain-insensitive factor loadings), and a between-domain distance (using the
domain-distinguishing factor loadings). We considered between-domain distance to
be a way of operationally defining incongruity (greater distance = greater incongruity),
and within-domain distance to be a way of operationalizing resolution (less distance
= greater resolution).
We then created metaphor-like sentences using pairs of nouns from different
domains and asked a second group of participants to rate them for funniness. As pre-
dicted (and consistent with the findings of Godkewitsch, 1974), the between-domain
distance (incongruity) of the noun pairs in each sentence showed a significant posi-
tive correlation with the funniness ratings of the jokes. That is, noun pairs with greater
between-domain distance were rated as more funny. Also as predicted, within-domain
distance (resolution) showed no simple correlation with funniness, but did produce a
significant interaction with between-domain distance in predicting funniness ratings.
In particular, sentences that were rated as most funny were those that showed both
high between-domain distance (incongruity) and low within-domain distance (reso-
lution). To illustrate, a sentence that received a relatively high mean humor rating was
"Woody Allen is the quiche of actors." The between-domain semantic distance
between Woody Allen and quiche was large (actors are quite different from foods on
some dimensions), but the within-domain distance was small (Woody Allen and
quiche are quite similar in some ways within their respective domains). Thus, there
is incongruity but also some sort of resolution to the incongruity (i.e., the incongruity
"makes sense" in some way).
The semantic distance approach did seem to capture some relevant dimensions
of humor, as it was able to systematically predict funniness ratings of simple verbal
material. It could still be a useful method for exploring various additional parameters
that may be relevant to some types of humor. However, this technique has several
limitations. It provides only a static picture of the organization of semantic meaning,
and is therefore not useful for examining the processes whereby cognitive structures
(schemas) are activated over time in processing humorous information. It also assumes
PSYCHOLOGICAL APPROACHES TO THE STUDY OF SCHEMAS IN HUMOR 9!
that cognitive organization is the same in all people, and, because mean ratings
are averaged across large numbers of participants, it is not amenable to studying in-
dividual differences in humor comprehension. In addition, it allows only for the study
of simple "pseudo-jokes" made up of word pairs, rather than more complex real jokes
and other natural forms of humorous material.
Semantic Priming Techniques
More recently, cognitive psychologists have developed a number of more sophisti-
cated experimental techniques for studying schema activation in real time with more
naturalistic stimuli. An example of such techniques is the use of lexical decision tasks
to determine whether or not a particular schema has been activated (primed) as a result
of exposure to some previous information. In these tasks, research participants are
presented with a string of letters on a computer screen and are asked to indicate as
quickly as possible whether the letter string is a real word or a nonword (i.e., a random
string of letters) by pressing one of two keys associated with each of these options.
The reaction time for making this response is measured in milliseconds.
Studies have shown that, on those trials in which the target letters form a word,
if the word on the screen is semantically related to a schema that has been previously
activated (or "primed"), participants will respond faster than if it is not related to an
activated schema, presumably because the information is more readily accessible in
their minds. For example, if participants have been thinking about cats (and therefore
the cat schema has been activated) they will respond more quickly to the word whiskers
(which is semantically related to the cat schema) than they would if they had been
thinking about automobiles and an automobile schema was therefore primed. Con-
sequently, this methodology can be used by researchers to determine whether or not
a particular schema has been activated in an individual at a given point in time. For
example, this sort of lexical decision task has been used by psycholinguists to deter-
mine the way various scripts become activated while people are reading narrative texts
(e.g., Sharkey and Mitchell, 1985).
Recently, psychologists have begun to make use of techniques such as the Lexical
Decision Semantic Priming Task in the study of humor comprehension. For example,
Jyotsna Vaid and her colleagues (2003) at Texas A&M University used this technique
to study schema activation during the reading of jokes. Based on incongruity theory,
they hypothesized that an initial schema (SI) is activated during the joke setup, and
a second, surprising or incongruous, schema (S2) is activated later in the joke. For
example, in the joke about the patient and the doctor's wife discussed previously, SI
would be the "doctor" script and S2 would be the "lover" script. These researchers
were interested in determining whether S2 becomes activated relatively early while
reading the setup or whether it is not activated until the punch line. They also wished
to determine whether S2 replaces SI, so that only S2 remains active by the end of
the joke (the selective attention view), or whether both SI and S2 remain activated
concurrently right up to the end of the joke (the concurrent activation view). This
THE COGNITIVE PSYCHOLOGY OF HUMOR
question is relevant to the competing predictions made by incongruity-resolution
theories, such as those of Suls (1972) and Shultz (1976), versus concurrent activation
theories such as those of Attardo and Raskin (1991) and Wyer and Collins (1992).
Vaid and her colleagues presented participants with a series of jokes printed on a
computer screen. Each joke was divided into three segments, with the setup being
divided into two parts to form the first two segments, and the punch line forming the
third segment. After each segment, the subjects were presented with a lexical deci-
sion probe involving words that were semantically related to either the initial schema
(SI) or the second (incongruous) schema (S2) (the schemas had been identified in
pretesting of the jokes with a different group of subjects). If, after a particular joke
segment, reaction times for making a particular word-nonword discrimination were
significantly shorter than those found in a baseline test, this would indicate that the
schema associated with the particular word was activated by that point in processing
the joke.
The results revealed that the initial schemas (SI) were activated during the pre-
sentation of the first two segments of the jokes (i.e., throughout the setup), whereas
the incongruous second schemas (S2) became activated during the second segment
(i.e., the second half of the setup). Unexpectedly, however, neither of the schemas was
found to be activated at the final time point (immediately after the punch line). These
results were difficult to explain. On the one hand, they seemed to show some support
for the concurrent activation view, since S2 was not more strongly activated than SI
by the end of the joke. On the other hand, though, the lack of activation of either
schema by that point was inconsistent with either hypothesis. This finding needs to
be replicated in further research before firm conclusions can be drawn. Interestingly,
the finding that S2 was primed well before the punch line suggests that numerous
potential schemas may be activated even before the incongruity is encountered. This
finding seems to provide additional evidence, consistent with the findings of Kenny
(1955) and Pollio and Mers (1974), discussed in Chapter 3, that the recipients of a
joke have already anticipated the "true" meaning of the joke well before they hear the
punch line, rather than it being unexpected (as suggested by incongruity-resolution
theories).
In a second experiment, Vaid and her colleagues (2003) used the same method-
ology to examine the activation of the two schemas more than four seconds after a
joke was presented, giving the participants ample time to process the joke meaning.
Here, the results showed priming for the second schema (S2) but not for the initial
schema (SI). These findings were interpreted as supporting the selective attention
view, since only the second joke meaning appears to be primed after the joke is fully
processed. Because they did not include lexical decision probes at times closer to the
ending of the joke, however, these results are not conclusive. Further research is
needed to replicate these studies and to investigate the priming of schemas at multi-
ple time points during and after the presentation of jokes.
Other methods that have been developed for psycholinguistic research on schema
activation could also be adapted to address research questions relating to humor. An
example is the Cross-Modal Lexical Priming Task, which was used by Stewart and
COGNITIVE PROCESSES IN CONVERSATIONAL HUMOR: IRONY AND SARCASM
Heredia (2002) to study schema activation during metaphor comprehension. In this
technique, auditory information (e.g., a joke or funny narrative) is presented to
research participants via headphones, and probe words related to various schemas are
presented visually on a computer screen at precise moments during the auditory pre-
sentation. The participants are instructed to read these probe words aloud as quickly
as possible, and the reaction times for reading the words are recorded. Since words
that are semantically related to currently activated schemas are spoken more quickly
than those unrelated to activated schemas, this is another way of testing whether or
not particular schemas have been primed.
Another method is the Word Fragment Completion Test (e.g., Giora and Fein,
1999) in which participants are instructed to complete a fragmented (partially spelled
out) word with the first word they can think of. Words that are semantically more
closely related to currently primed schemas can be completed more quickly. Thus,
these methods can be used to determine whether particular schemas have been acti-
vated at particular points during the processing of jokes and other humorous texts.
As this brief overview shows, these sorts of techniques hold a great deal of promise
for cognitive research on humor, enabling researchers to test specific hypotheses about
the time course of schema activation during the processing of humorous texts. More
studies are needed to replicate the initial findings of Vaid et al. (2003), to clarify the
patterns that have been observed, and to broaden the scope of inquiry. These authors
listed a number of unanswered research questions, including the precise timing and
duration of activation of the schemas, the role of individual differences in joke pro-
cessing, the effects of manipulating subjects' expectations about whether or not they
will be encountering humorous materials, the degree to which meaning activation in
joke processing is subject to strategic versus automatic control, and the processes
involved in different types of humorous texts besides jokes, such as humor occurring
spontaneously in conversation (e.g., irony, witticisms). Besides greatly enriching our
understanding of the cognitive processes involved in humor, the results of these sorts
of investigations should help to address long-standing debates among theorists, such
as the debate about incongruity versus incongruity-resolution as the basis of humor.
COGNITIVE PROCESSES IN CONVERSATIONAL HUMOR:
IRONY AND SARCASM
Much of the past theoretical and empirical work on cognitive aspects of humor has
focused particularly on jokes. For example, Attardo and Raskin's GTVH was designed
primarily to explain joke comprehension. However, as noted in Chapter 1, most of
the humor that we encounter in everyday life is not in the form of "canned" jokes
(R. A. Martin and Kuiper, 1999; Provine, 2000). Much everyday humor arises from
spontaneous intentional and unintentional verbal and nonverbal behaviors of people
interacting with one another, such as witty retorts, wordplay, banter, teasing, irony,
sarcasm, slips of the tongue, practical jokes, and pratfalls (Long and Graesser, 1988;
Norrick, 1993, 2003).
THE COGNITIVE PSYCHOLOGY OF HUMOR
Since jokes are context-free and self-contained, and can be told in many conver-
sational contexts, they are relatively easy to analyze and they lend themselves well to
experimental research. Conversational humor, however, depends more on the con-
stantly changing social context and therefore poses greater challenges for theorists
and researchers. Nonetheless, some theoretical and empirical work has been done in
this area in recent years by cognitive psychologists (particularly psycholinguists)
and linguists (primarily those working in the areas of pragmatics and discourse
analysis). For example, Wyer and Collins (Wyer, 2004, 1992) showed how their com-
prehension-elaboration theory of humor elicitation can be used to account for
many types of witticisms as well as unintentional humor and even nonverbal humor.
Norrick (1986) also applied his schema conflict theory to a variety of conversational
witticisms in addition to jokes, including witty retorts, quips, and one-liners. Lippman
and Dunn (2000) also conducted a series of experiments on appreciation and memory
for puns.
One type of conversational humor that has received particular theoretical and
empirical attention in recent years is irony. Irony is a figure of speech that commu-
nicates the opposite of what is said. For example, someone who says "What a beau-
tiful day!" during a bleak and miserable day is actually communicating "What an awful
day." Although irony is not always funny, it can be a source of humor. Irony is also
closely related to sarcasm, which depends for its effect on "bitter, caustic, and other
ironic language that is usually directed against an individual" (Gibbs, 1986, p. 3). For
example, if someone says "You're a fine friend" to someone who has been unkind, this
is an ironic statement that is also sarcastic.
Psycholinguist Rachel Giora and her colleagues at Tel Aviv University have pro-
posed a graded salience theory of humor that is based on pragmatics and focuses pri-
marily on irony. Giora (1985, 1995) suggested that there are implicit rules that people
follow while engaging in conversation ("discourse"): (1) all messages should be rele-
vant to the topic of conversation (the relevance requirement); (2) successive messages
should be gradually more informative, and not less informative, than preceding ones
(the graded informativeness requirement); and (3) any deviation from the first two
rules should be "marked" with an explicit semantic connector such as "by the way"
or "after all." When we are attempting to understand the meaning of something
another person says during a conversation, we are initially guided by the "graded
salience principle," which dictates that salient meanings (i.e., the more conventional,
common, familiar, or prototypical meanings) are always activated first. If the salient
meaning does not match the context (doesn't make sense), then less salient meanings
are activated. Subsequently, there is a contextual integration phase, in which any
meanings that have been activated are either retained, or suppressed as irrelevant or
disruptive, or permitted to fade.
An ironic statement in a conversation, according to Giora (1995, 1998), conforms
to the relevance requirement, since it introduces information about the current topic
of conversation, but it violates the graded informativeness requirement, since it intro-
duces an improbable message whose salient meaning is either too informative or not
informative enough. To understand the ironic statement, the listener first activates its
COGNITIVE PROCESSES IN CONVERSATIONAL HUMOR: IRONY AND SARCASM
salient (literal) meaning, but, since this does not make sense in the context, must then
activate an "unmarked" interpretation (the "implicature"), and both of these mean-
ings remain activated in order for them to be compared. The incongruity between
the two activated meanings causes the irony to be humorous. In addition to explain-
ing irony, Giora (1991) also applied her graded salience theory to the understanding
of jokes. Although this theory is similar in many ways to Raskin's (1985) script-based
theory, Giora 's theory takes the social context of humor into account, and is there-
fore more applicable to non-joke-related humor. Indeed, Norrick (2003) has applied
Giora's theory to various types of conversational witticisms, including puns and
amusing anecdotes.
Some implications of Giora's theory are that comprehension of ironic statements
should take longer than nonironic statements (since it involves activating two mean-
ings), and that both meanings should remain activated after the "true" meaning of the
ironic statement has been understood. These predictions are in contrast to some other
theories (e.g., H. H. Clark and Gerrig, 1984; Gibbs, 1994; Sperber, 1984) that suggest
that, given enough contextual information, irony (and other nonliteral language) is
processed in the same way as literal language (known as the Processing Equivalence
Hypothesis). According to these views, irony should take no longer to understand
than literal language, and only the ironic meaning will be activated.
Although some research findings seem to provide support for the Processing
Equivalence Hypothesis (e.g. Gibbs, 1986), Giora (1995) reinterpreted these findings
in light of her own theory. In addition, Giora and her colleagues have conducted
several experiments that provide evidence in support of her graded salience theory
and against the Processing Equivalence Hypothesis. For example, Giora, Fein, and
Schwartz (1998) showed that reading a statement in an ironically biased context (i.e.,
at the end of a story in which the statement is clearly meant to be taken ironically)
takes longer than reading the same utterance in a literally biased context (where the
preceding story supports a literal interpretation), indicating that more processing is
taking place in the case of irony comprehension. In another experiment, using the
Lexical Decision Semantic Priming Technique described earlier, they showed that
both the ironic and literal meanings of sentences were activated when they were pre-
sented in an ironically biased context, but only the literal meanings were activated in
a literally biased context. Giora and Fein (1999) also found similar results using the
Word Fragment Completion Procedure to test meaning activation.
More recent research suggests that the conflict between the Processing Equiva-
lence and Graded Salience Hypotheses may be resolved by taking the social context
into account. Albert Katz, a cognitive psychologist at the University of Western
Ontario, and his colleagues summarized a body of research investigating the way indi-
viduals process sarcastic statements when they have been provided with information
about the interpersonal context, such as the degree of relatedness and shared knowl-
edge of the participants in a conversation, or the gender and occupation of the speaker
(A. N. Katz et al, 2004). Taken together, these studies showed that the speed with
which people recognize statements as sarcasm depends on their prior information
about the context.
THE COGNITIVE PSYCHOLOGY OF HUMOR
For example, some studies found that, when subjects are told that a statement was
made by a male, they take no longer to read sarcastic statements than literal state-
ments (supporting the Processing Equivalence Hypothesis), whereas when the state-
ment is made by a female, sarcastic sentences take longer to read than literal ones
(supporting the Graded Salience Hypothesis). These findings suggest that, since males
are generally perceived as being more likely to use sarcasm than are females, the sar-
castic meaning of an utterance by a male is more readily available during the com-
prehension process. In contrast, when a woman makes a sarcastic comment, the literal
meaning tends to be activated initially, before the sarcastic meaning is accessed, result-
ing in lengthier processing. Similar differences in processing time were found when
participants were given information about the occupation of the speaker. Sarcastic
statements were processed very quickly when the speaker was described as being either
a comedian or a factory worker, but they required longer processing time when the
speaker was said to be a priest or teacher (occupations that are stereotypically viewed
as less likely to use sarcasm).
Katz and his colleagues (2004) proposed a constraint-satisfaction model to
account for these sorts of findings. According to this theory, different sources of
information about the social context (i.e., constraints) provide probabilistic support
for different possible interpretations of an utterance (e.g., whether it is literal
or sarcastic). These constraints operate in parallel while a sentence is being processed.
If the constraints all point in the same direction, competition between alternative
interpretations is resolved rapidly, whereas settling on an interpretation takes longer
if support for different alternatives is nearly equal. Thus, the social context in which
ironic or sarcastic statements are made plays an important role in determining
how efficiently they are interpreted. If all indicators point toward a humorous inter-
pretation right from the start, the incongruity of humor can be interpreted very
quickly.
Other recent psycholinguistic investigations of the comprehension of nonliteral
humorous language have provided further evidence of the importance of taking the
interpersonal context into account. For example, Penny Pexman and Meghan
Zvaigzne (2004), at the University of Calgary, examined the effect of the closeness of
a relationship on participants' comprehension of ironic insults and compliments.
Ironic insults are positive statements that are intended to be taken as criticisms (e.g.,
saying "You're a fine friend" when someone has done something unkind), whereas
ironic compliments are negative statements that are intended to be taken positively
(e.g., saying "Too bad you can't play baseball" when someone has just scored a home
run). Participants were presented with vignettes describing either a close friend or a
casual acquaintance making a positive or a negative statement in a positive or
a negative social context, and were asked to rate these statements on a number of
dimensions.
As expected, when the positivity of the statement was incongruent with the pos-
itivity of the context (e.g., a positive statement in a negative context), the statements
were perceived by the participants to be ironic, regardless of whether the statement
took place between close friends or casual acquaintances. However, the closeness of
EFFECTS OF HUMOR ON COGNITION
the relationship affected the perceived funniness of these ironic statements: irony
occurring between close friends, as compared to casual acquaintances, was rated as
more humorous, especially if it was an ironic compliment. Irony between close friends
(as compared to acquaintances) was also more likely to be perceived as friendly teasing
and less likely to be viewed as having either a positive or negative impact on their
relationship. Interestingly, ironic compliments were rated as being less polite than
literal compliments, whereas ironic insults were rated as being more polite than literal
insults. The authors concluded from their overall findings that humor in the form of
irony plays a role in building and maintaining close relationships. In addition, the
presence of solidarity and closeness in a relationship acts as a cue for interpreting the
intention of the ironic speaker, facilitating the second-order inferences that are needed
to understand such nonliteral remarks. Thus, social factors as well as linguistic factors
are important for understanding irony.
Overall, then, in recent years there has been some debate among psycholinguists
concerning the cognitive processes involved in the comprehension of irony and
sarcasm, and this has stimulated a considerable amount of interesting research (see
Creusere, 1999, for a review). Moreover, as cognitive psychologists have moved
beyond the study of jokes to these more conversational forms of humor, their research
has increasingly taken the interpersonal context into account, examining the effects
of social as well as linguistic factors on cognitive processing of humor. Similar research
efforts will hopefully be applied to investigate other types of conversational humor
besides irony and sarcasm. The techniques for assessing schema activation that I have
discussed are potentially useful tools for further creative research in this area.
EFFECTS OF HUMOR ON COGNITION
Thus far, I have examined cognitive processes that are involved in humor compre-
hension. I now turn to a discussion of the possible effects of humor on other aspects
of cognition, focusing particularly on creativity and memory.
Creativity
Many theorists and researchers have noted a close relationship between humor and
creativity. Koestler (1964) considered humor, along with scientific discovery and artis-
tic creation, to be forms of creativity, all of which involved the process of bisociation
(discussed earlier). Just as elements like incongruity, surprise, and novelty are seen by
theorists as necessary elements of humor, these are also seen by creativity theorists as
defining characteristics of creativity (e.g., Besemer and Treffinger, 1981; Mednick,
1962). Thus, both humor and creativity involve a switch of perspective, a new way of
looking at things. Indeed, many creativity researchers consider humor to be essen-
tially a type of creativity. Consequently, some measures of creative ability or creative
personality that they have developed include assessments of humor among their items
(e.g., G. A. Davis and Subkoviak, 1975; Torrance, 1966).
THE COGNITIVE PSYCHOLOGY OF HUMOR
Several studies have also investigated the creativity involved in subjects' humor-
ous productions (e.g., Derks, 1987; Derks and Hervas, 1988). Murdock and Ganim
(1993) reviewed the theoretical literature on humor and creativity, and concluded that
humor can be considered a subset of creativity, recommending that they be studied
within similar conceptual frameworks. However, O'Quin and Derks (1997) disagreed
with this view. On the basis of the existing research evidence, they concluded that,
although there are close theoretical links between the two, creativity and humor
should be considered two separate but partially overlapping domains.
A large number of studies have examined the relation between trait measures of
sense of humor and measures of creative abilities and traits, indicating a moderate
relationship between the two (see O'Quin and Derks, 1997, for a review). Thus, indi-
viduals with a greater sense of humor also tend to be more creative in other areas.
However, this correlational research does not provide evidence of a causal influence.
Indeed, O'Quin and Derks (1997) pointed out that the two may be related due to the
common influence of a third variable, such as intelligence. Here I am interested par-
ticularly in the potential effects of humor on creativity. Does exposure to humor cause
people to be more creative in their thinking? There are at least two possible mecha-
nisms by which humor may be expected to affect creativity. First, the flexible thought
processes and activation of multiple schemas involved in the processing of incon-
gruities in humor may facilitate the flexible and divergent thinking required for cre-
ativity (Belanger, Kirkpatrick, and Derks, 1998). Second, the positive emotion (i.e.,
mirth) associated with humor may reduce tension and anxiety, resulting in less rigid-
ity of thinking and an enhanced ability to relate and integrate divergent material (Isen,
Daubman, and Nowicki, 1987).
A number of experiments have provided considerable evidence that exposure to
humor produces an increase in people's creative potential. Israeli psychologist Avner
Ziv (1976) compared scores of tenth grade students on two tests of verbal creativity
after they had either listened to a recording of a popular comedian or engaged in a
nonhumorous activity. Compared to the controls, those in the humor condition
obtained significantly higher scores on measures of fluency, flexibility, and original-
ity, as well as total creativity.
In the 1980s, psychologist Alice Isen, at the University of Maryland, and her col-
leagues conducted a series of studies demonstrating facilitative effects of positive
emotion on creativity (Isen et al., 1987; Isen, Johnson, Mertz, and Robinson, 1985).
Creativity was assessed by a variety of methods, including the Remote Associates Test,
unusual word associations, and problem-solving tasks requiring creative ingenuity.
Although Isen and her colleagues conceptualized their findings in terms of positive
affect in general rather than humor in particular, in most of these studies they used
exposure to comedy films as one method of inducing positive emotion. The studies
generally showed that exposure to comedy resulted in more creative responses as com-
pared to emotionally neutral or negative control conditions. Since these findings also
occurred with nonhumorous methods of inducing positive emotions, it appears that
the creativity-enhancing effects of humor are likely due to effects of mirth (i.e., the
emotional component of humor) on cognition rather than to a more cognitive mech-
EFFECTS OF HUMOR ON COGNITION 1(
anism such as the idea that activation of multiple schemas in humor produces
increased cognitive flexibility. Other research has shown that positive emotional states
(including humor-related mirth) affect a variety of cognitive processes including
memory, judgment, willingness to take risks, cognitive organization, and decision
making (Isen, 1993, 2003; Isen and Daubman, 1984).
In summary, there is evidence that exposure to humor can enhance creative think-
ing, and that this effect is likely mediated by the positive emotion (i.e., mirth) asso-
ciated with humor. These findings may have practical implications for applications of
humor for enhancing creative thinking and problem solving in such fields as educa-
tion and business (which will be discussed in Chapter 11).
Memory
Does humor enhance memory? More specifically, is humorous material remembered
better than nonhumorous material? Educators and advertisers have long believed in
the beneficial effects on memory of humorous lectures and advertisements. There are
several reasons why humor might be expected to enhance memory (Schmidt, 1994).
First, the positive emotion associated with humor may have positive effects on
memory in a manner similar to the demonstrated effects of nonhumorous emotional
arousal. Second, humor may enhance attention to stimuli due to the novelty and sur-
prise involved in humorous incongruity. Third, humorous material may be rehearsed
more than nonhumorous material, resulting in increased retention. Finally, humor
may affect retrieval strategies, biasing subjects to retrieve humorous material before
nonhumorous material.
Several early studies investigated memory-enhancing effects of humor in the con-
texts of education (e.g., Kaplan and Pascoe, 1977; Kintsch and Bates, 1977) and adver-
tising (e.g., C. P. Duncan, Nelson, and Frontzak, 1984; Gelb and Zinkhan, 1986) with
mixed results. However, most of these did not provide adequate control over possi-
ble confounding factors such as the emotional content of the materials to be remem-
bered. More recently, Steven Schmidt, a psychologist at Middle Tennessee State
University, has conducted a series of well-designed experiments that demonstrated
enhanced memory effects of humor, and explored a number of competing hypothe-
ses regarding the mechanisms involved (Schmidt, 1994, 2002; Schmidt and Williams,
2001).
In a series of six experiments, Schmidt (1994) examined the effects of humor on
sentence memory by presenting participants with lists of humorous and nonhumor-
ous sentences. To control for possible nonhumor-related differences between the sen-
tences, humorous and nonhumorous versions of the same sentences were used.
Pretesting of the sentences revealed that they did not differ on ratings of bizarreness,
difficulty, meaningfulness, or familiarity, but did differ greatly on rated funniness. The
studies revealed that humorous sentences were recalled better than nonhumorous
sentences when they were presented in lists containing both types of sentences. In
fact, enhanced recall of the humorous sentences was found at the expense of the
nonhumorous sentences in the same list. In other words, when both humorous and
THE COGNITIVE PSYCHOLOGY OF HUMOR
nonhumorous sentences were presented in the same list, participants performed better
in recalling the humorous sentences but worse in recalling the nonhumorous sen-
tences, relative to their performance when either type of sentence was presented alone.
However, when the two types of sentences were presented in separate homogeneous
lists, there was no difference in recall for the two types. These effects were found
with free and cued recall, in incidental and intentional learning, and on a variety of
measures of sentence access. As to the possible mechanisms involved, Schmidt con-
cluded that the findings were inconsistent with simple arousal, surprise, and retrieval
explanations, but consistent with the hypothesis that humorous material receives both
increased attention and rehearsal as compared to nonhumorous material.
Schmidt and Williams (2001) examined further the effects of humor on memory,
using cartoons instead of humorous sentences. Participants were better able to recall
the gist of original cartoons than nonhumorous or "weird" (but not funny) versions
of the same cartoons. However, these memory differences were not found for detailed
cartoon information such as the actual wording of the captions. Schmidt (2002) repli-
cated the findings with cartoon stimuli and also took heart rate measures of partici-
pants to examine the role of physiological arousal in the memory effect of humor. The
heart rate results did not show evidence for an enhanced orienting response to the
humorous materials (contrary to the prediction of Deckers and Hricik, 1984), but a
greater secondary heart-rate deceleration to the humorous cartoons suggested that
different encoding processes occurred with the humorous as compared to the non-
humorous stimuli. Overall, these findings suggest that humor serves as a sort of
mnemonic technique or memory aid, causing greater elaboration of information and
therefore enhancing its transfer and storage in long-term memory.
If humor aids memory, why is it often so difficult to remember a joke? Schmidt
and Williams (2001) commented that their findings help to explain this phenomenon,
since humor enhances memory for the gist of the material, but not for details such as
the exact wording. The funniness of a joke may help us to remember what it was
generally about, but may not help us to remember the exact wording of the punch
line. More effortful repetition and elaboration seems to be needed to memorize a joke
if one wishes to be able to recall it later. The authors also suggest that past research
showing mnemonic benefits of bizarre imagery (the "bizarreness effect") may have
been due to humorousness rather than bizarreness, since the weird cartoons without
humor in their study did not have an effect on memory.
Peter Derks and his colleagues, at the College of William and Mary, used exper-
imental procedures similar to those of Schmidt (1994) to examine potential memory
effects of "tendentious" (i.e., sexual and aggressive) humor compared to nontenden-
tious humor (Derks, Gardner, and Agarwal, 1998). They partially replicated Schmidt's
findings of memory-enhancing effects of humorous material, and also found a strong
effect for tendentiousness, indicating that emotionally arousing elements such as sex
and aggression further enhance these memory effects. Lippman and Dunn (2000) also
found some evidence for memory-enhancing effects of humor using puns.
In summary, these studies provide quite convincing evidence that humorous
information is recalled better than nonhumorous information when both are pre-
COMPUTATIONAL APPROACHES TO HUMOR 1C
sented in the same context. If only humorous material is presented, there is no ap-
parent benefit for memory. However, the recall of humorous material appears to be
at the expense of memory for nonhumorous information presented at the same time.
These findings have potential implications for education and advertising. For example,
humor may enhance memory for the humorous material but diminish memory for
other information contained in a lecture or advertisement. Humor therefore should
be integrated with the course content or product. In addition, constant use of humor
will have little effect on retention. Instead, humor should be used to illustrate impor-
tant concepts and not background or peripheral material.
COMPUTATIONAL APPROACHES TO HUMOR
Is it possible to program a computer to generate and/or understand humor? Although
researchers in the field of artificial intelligence (AI) have, for the most part, ignored
humor, it can be argued that any attempt to develop a truly intelligent computer
system will ultimately need to address the problem of humor. Graeme Ritchie, a lin-
guist and AI researcher at the University of Edinburgh, along with his students and
colleagues, is currently the most active scholar in the field of computational humor
(Binsted and Ritchie, 1997, 2001; Ritchie, 2001, 2004). Ritchie (2001) suggested that
AI investigations of humor can not only help to clarify our theories of humor, but can
also lead to important discoveries about human intelligence, language, problem
solving, and information processing more generally.
Moreover, as artificial intelligence systems, such as robots, become increasingly
sophisticated in the future, it may be important for them to be able to generate and
understand humor in order to communicate more effectively and in a more congenial
way with the humans with whom they interact. On a more philosophical note, we can
consider whether truly intelligent robots might even require a sense of humor in order
to cope with the incongruous and inconsistent perspectives that confront any intelli-
gent being functioning autonomously in the real world and interacting with other
intelligent beings. The idea that humor is more than just a luxury is suggested by the-
ories that it evolved in humans as a mode of interpersonal communication for dealing
with conflicting perspectives (Mulkay, 1988), or as a cognitive coping mechanism that
is necessary for survival (Dixon, 1980). These questions are similar to questions about
whether artificially intelligent systems functioning in the real world would require
some analog of emotion (Trappl, Petta, and Payr, 2002).
Ritchie (2001, 2004) has advocated an "experimental AI" approach, in which
computer programming is used as a means of testing cognitive (and particularly
linguistic) theories of humor. In order for a theory to be implemented in a computer
program, it needs to be formal, precise, detailed, and rigorous, conforming to the
principles of generative linguistics and AI. Thus, AI investigations provide a way of
sniffing out fuzzy thinking and faulty logic that might not otherwise be apparent in
theoretical formulations. Unfortunately, according to Ritchie, most of the existing
theories of humor are too vague and imprecise to be of much use to AI. For example,
THE COGNITIVE PSYCHOLOGY OF HUMOR
Ritchie (1999) criticized the traditional incongruity-resolution theories (which I dis-
cussed in Chapter 3), pointing out that the ideas of incongruity and resolution have
not been defined clearly enough and that different theories use these concepts in dif-
ferent ways. In particular, although they are often seen as being equivalent, Shultz's
(1976) theory (which Ritchie refers to as the "surprise disambiguation model") is, on
close analysis, actually quite different from Suls' (1972) theory (the "two-stage
model"). The two theories have different implications and apply to different classes
of jokes (see also Ritchie, in press). Ritchie (2004) has also criticized Raskin and
Attardo's General Theory of Verbal Humor (discussed earlier), as being too vague in
its present form for computer implementation.
One reason for the vagueness and imprecision of many theories, according to
Ritchie, is that they attempt to explain too many different types of humor. Ritchie
strongly rejects the quest for a "grand theory of humor" at the present time, arguing
instead that we need to identify specific subclasses that can be thoroughly character-
ized and implemented on a computer. Only after we have done this with a large
number of types can we build up a comprehensive theory that accounts for all kinds
of humor. Accordingly, Ritchie has narrowed his focus to verbal jokes, and even more
narrowly to certain types of jokes that share particular verbal mechanisms (e.g.,
punning riddles).
Although one could theoretically attempt to develop a program that is able to
process verbal texts that are fed into it and determine whether or not they are funny,
Ritchie suggests that the more practical place to begin is with programs that apply a
given theory to generate humorous texts. Human judges can then determine whether
the output of the program is indeed humorous. By observing the behavior of the
program (i.e., the types of jokes it produces), one can obtain useful insights into the
weaknesses of the theory underlying it. This can then lead to further refinements of
the theory and corresponding "tweaking" of the program. Thus, the goal of this sort
of programming enterprise is not so much the program itself but the refinement of
the theoretical ideas underlying it.
Kim Binsted and Graeme Ritchie (1997) have taken this approach in developing
a computer program called Joke Analysis and Production Engine QAPE) that gener-
ates a specific class of jokes known as punning riddles. These are question-answer
jokes that are based on a pun (e.g., What's the difference between a hairy dog and a
painter? One sheds his coat, the other coats his shed.). Binsted and Ritchie began by
developing a formal model of the punning mechanisms underlying these types of
riddles, identifying a set of symbolic rules about the meaning combinations and textual
forms involved. These rules were then built into a program that also has access to a
large natural language lexicon (dictionary) of the kind used in AI research generally.
This lexicon contains a large number of words, along with information about their
phonetic pronunciation, lexical usage, and syntactic meaning. It is important to note
that this lexicon does not contain any information that could be conceived as inher-
ently "funny." Nonetheless, by searching through the lexicon for suitable word pairs
that meet the criteria described by the rules, and applying various basic templates of
COMPUTATIONAL APPROACHES TO HUMOR 1(
riddle structure, the program is able to generate a virtually limitless number of novel
riddles.
The following are some examples of the funnier riddles that were generated by
JAPE (from Ritchie, 2004):
What do you call a ferocious nude? A grizzly bare.
What do you get when you cross breakfast food with a murderer? A cereal killer.
What's the difference between leaves and a car? One you brush and rake, the other you rush and
brake.
What's the difference between a horse and a wagon? One bolts and jumps, the other jolts and bumps.
Binsted, Pain, and Ritchie (1997) conducted a study to evaluate the output of
JAPE, using a sample of 8- to 11 -year-old children as judges. They presented these
subjects with a random selection of JAPE-produced riddles, human-produced riddles
(taken from published joke books), nonsense nonjokes, and sensible nonjokes. The
children were asked to determine whether each text was a joke and, if so, how funny
it was and whether they had heard it before. The results showed that the JAPE-
produced riddles were identified as jokes just as reliably as the human-produced ones,
and both were easily distinguished from the non-jokes. Although the JAPE-produced
jokes were rated as less funny, on average, than the human-produced jokes, a number
of the JAPE riddles were rated as being just as funny as those produced by humans.
Further analysis of the less funny riddles produced by JAPE may lead to future refine-
ments of the program and, at the same time, a more precise linguistic theory of this
type of humor.
In addition to the JAPE program, Binsted and Ritchie (2001) analyzed the struc-
ture and formal regularities of another class of joke, which they referred to as "story
puns," and offered some suggestions about a possible computational model for their
production. Ritchie (2004) also described a number of other computer programs that
have been developed by other researchers using a variety of approaches. As one
example, Bruce Katz (1993) took a connectionist approach in developing a neural
network model of incongruity in humor that attempted also to incorporate concepts
of arousal, sexual and aggressive themes, and hedonic tone (i.e., mirth).
Although computational models such as JAPE appear to be quite promising,
Ritchie (2001, 2004) acknowledges that they are still at a very early stage of develop-
ment. The implementation rules underlying this program are not tied to any real
hypotheses about humor in general, and it is not clear how to generalize from this
model to other forms of humor. In addition, a complete computational model of
humor will ultimately require the development of truly intelligent systems with a vast
foundation of encyclopedic knowledge coupled with sophisticated reasoning abilities.
Nonetheless, Ritchie contends that steps can be taken toward this ultimate goal by
breaking the problem into smaller chunks, identifying specific classes of humor, and
developing rigorous formal descriptions that can be implemented using existing tech-
nology. "The overall message," states Ritchie (2001, p. 132), "is that endeavoring to
develop computational models of humor is a worthwhile enterprise both for artificial
THE COGNITIVE PSYCHOLOGY OF HUMOR
intelligence and for those interested in humor, but we are starting from a very meager
foundation, and the challenges are significant."
Ritchie has argued that attempts to implement cognitive theories of humor in
computer programs are beneficial to psychologists as well as linguists by providing a
way of testing theories and alerting theorists to weaknesses in their models. To be
psychologically relevant, however, it is important that the computer simulations
carry out the tasks in the same way that humans are assumed to do. For example,
although computer chess programs are capable of outplaying most of the best human
players, they operate very differently than human chess players, and are therefore not
a very good test of cognitive theories of human chess playing. Similarly, it is not
entirely clear that programs like JAPE generate humor in the same way that humans
do.
Ritchie's recommendation for more narrowly focused theories applied to discrete
types of humor may also be a useful suggestion for psychological humor research,
although this arguably depends on the goals of the individual researcher. If the goal
is to identify general characteristics of humor that distinguish it from other human
activities, then broader, more general theories may be appropriate. On the other hand,
if the goal is to describe in detail how people cognitively process particular types of
humor, then greater progress will likely be made with research aimed at testing spe-
cific hypotheses derived from narrowly focused theories. However, for the purposes
of understanding psychological aspects of humor, it may not be as necessary to make
such fine-grained distinctions (e.g., distinguishing between several different classes of
puns), and psychologists may find it useful to partition the humor domain ("carve
nature at its joints") in different ways than do AI researchers. In any case, for the psy-
chologist, advances in AI research on humor may be viewed as a rich source of poten-
tial hypotheses for further experimental research. Ritchie (1999) listed a number of
research questions that would be amenable to psychological investigations as well as
studies in AI.
HUMOR AS COGNITIVE PLAY
Most of the cognitive theories that have been developed to date attempt to explain
the processes involved in the comprehension of humor, but they do not address the
question of what makes humor so enjoyable. They may explain how we come to
understand a joke and recognize that something is funny, but they do not explain why
we are so motivated to seek out and participate in many forms of humor during our
daily lives. Indeed, as Max Eastman (1936) noted many years ago, humor theorists
often discuss humor as though it were a very serious business, and you would not
know from reading their writings that they are dealing with something that is inher-
ently pleasurable.
As I noted in previous chapters, humor involves emotional and social as well as
cognitive aspects. The relation between cognition and emotion is a thorny topic in
cognitive psychology generally, and most cognitive psychologists view it as outside
HUMOR AS COGNITIVE PLAY 1C
the scope of their research activities. Ultimately, though, it would seem that a com-
plete understanding of human cognition in general will require an understanding of
the role of emotion. Indeed, there is some evidence that seemingly purely rational
processes, such as decision making, are impossible without some emotional input
(Damasio, 1994).
The view of humor as cognitive play may provide a framework for thinking about
the interaction of cognitive, emotional, and social elements. When we engage in
humor, we are playing with language and ideas (schemas, scripts) in much the same
way that children (and adults) play with physical objects, exploring new and unusual
ways of using them, and delighting in these novel applications. For a child, an ordi-
nary stick can be an airplane, a person, or a rifle, evoking multiple schemas concur-
rently. The incongruity of humor that we have been discussing can be seen as a
manifestation of this play with ideas, where words and concepts are used in ways that
are surprising, unusual, and incongruous, activating schemas with which they are not
normally associated. As discussed in the previous chapter, Michael Apter (1982)
referred to the playful elaborations of multiple cognitive schemas as "synergy," and
noted that there is something inherently enjoyable about this activity when we are in
a playful, nonserious state of mind.
This view of humor as cognitive play also sheds light on the mechanisms of
jokes that we have been discussing. The simultaneous activation of multiple schemas
to try to make sense of a joke enables both the joke teller and the listener to engage
in playful cognitive synergies. As Forabosco (1992) has pointed out, the "resolutions"
involved in jokes are really "pseudo-resolutions," since they do not actually make sense
in a literal way. Thus, they are a way of playing creatively with the cognitive mecha-
nisms that we normally use in more "serious" contexts for seeking meaning in the
world.
Evolutionary theories of emotions suggest that they evolved because they moti-
vate us to behave in certain ways that have proven beneficial for survival and repro-
duction, avoiding certain situations and approaching others (Plutchik, 1991). As I
noted in Chapter 1 (and will discuss more fully in Chapter 6), research on primates
and other animals indicates that the playful cognitive activity involved in humor likely
evolved from mammalian rough-and-tumble social play. The associated positive
emotion of mirth is what motivates individuals to engage in this activity. Panksepp
(1998) has proposed a "ludic" (playful) emotion system in the brain that underlies pre-
sumably adaptive playful activities (including humor) and their associated positive
emotions. The fact that the cognitive play of humor elicits the positive emotion of
mirth suggests that this sort of flexible, exploratory cognitive behavior has an adap-
tive function, perhaps because of its benefits for flexible thinking, creativity, and
problem solving (Fagen, 1981) or as a means of facilitating social interaction and
bonding (Panksepp and Burgdorf, 2003). Also, as we have seen, the research of Isen
and her colleagues indicates that positive emotional states, in themselves, promote
creative thinking and problem solving as well as fostering social responsibility and
prosocial behaviors such as helpfulness and generosity (Isen, 2003). I will return to
these evolutionary issues in Chapter 6.
THE COGNITIVE PSYCHOLOGY OF HUMOR
CONCLUSION
What have we learned about cognitive processes in humor? The idea that some sort
of incongruity is the basis of all humor seems to be generally supported. However, it
is far from clear exactly how incongruity should be defined or conceptualized, and
whether it is a single mechanism that applies to all forms of humor or whether
we need to invoke different types of incongruity for different types of humor. Con-
temporary theories based on schema and script concepts have contributed a great deal
to our understanding, although further work is needed to make them more precise
and rigorous. These theories suggest that "resolution" of incongruity in jokes may
be best conceived as a mechanism for activating several schemas simultaneously,
rather than a way of replacing one schema with another (as suggested by earlier
incongruity-resolution theories). Cognitive psychologists have developed a number
of techniques for investigating the activation of particular schemas "on line" during
the processing of information. Future research using these methodologies will be ben-
eficial for conducting empirical tests of the hypotheses derived from schema-based
theories.
Much of the past theoretical and empirical work focused on jokes as a prototype
of humor. However, jokes are a relatively insignificant source of humor in most
people's daily lives, and the cognitive mechanisms involved in them may be somewhat
different from those in other forms of humor. It is risky for theorists to attempt to
develop general theories of humor based only on analyses of jokes. Fortunately, there
is growing interest among cognitive psychologists and linguists in other types of
humor apart from jokes, such as conversational witticisms, irony, puns, and sarcasm.
Here, as well, a positive trend is the increased interest in the pragmatics as well as the
semantics of humor.
Research examining how people actually use humor in everyday conversations
and interactions (including, but not limited to, telling jokes) will likely lead to better
understanding of cognitive as well as social aspects of humor. How a joke is cogni-
tively processed in the context of everyday social interactions (including the social
context of a psychology laboratory) may be quite different from the idealized processes
invoked in semantic theories that do not take pragmatics into account. Indeed, as we
have seen, recent research indicates that information about the social context plays an
important role in the comprehension of conversational types of humor such as irony
and sarcasm. Future cognitive research should also go beyond the linguistic types of
humor and begin to address nonverbal forms, such as slapstick comedy and acciden-
tal humor.
Another limitation of cognitive research on humor is that it has focused almost
exclusively on humor comprehension rather than humor creation. This reflects the
more general state of affairs in psycholinguistics and linguistics, where research on
language comprehension far outstrips work on language production. Although there
have been some isolated attempts by psychologists to address the cognitive processes
involved in the creation of humor (Shultz and Scott, 1974), this is a topic that awaits
further investigation.
CONCLUSION
There is considerable evidence that exposure to humor affects other cognitive
processes, particularly memory and creativity. Enhanced memory for humorous mate-
rial seems to be due to selective attention to and greater elaboration of humorous ele-
ments at the expense of less humorous information. The effects of humor on creativity
appear to be due to emotional rather than purely cognitive mechanisms. The emo-
tional component of humor has not received much attention from cognitively
oriented psychologists and linguists. The view of humor as cognitive play may
provide a framework for integrating the pleasurable emotional aspect with the
cognitive mechanisms of humor.
As in cognitive science generally, the interdisciplinary nature of the cognitive
study of humor is apparent, with important contributions coming from linguistics and
computer science as well as psychology. Indeed, many important theoretical advances
in recent decades have originated in linguistics rather than psychology. However,
there is also a small but active nucleus of psycholinguists who have continued to make
valuable theoretical and empirical contributions, particularly in the study of irony and
sarcasm.
At the present time, the field is ripe for further psychological research on cogni-
tive aspects of humor. As noted throughout this chapter, there are a great many
research questions and hypotheses coming from a variety of theories that could be
readily investigated empirically using the experimental methodologies available to
psychologists. Further research on cognitive aspects of humor may not only provide
a better understanding of the ubiquitous phenomena of humor, but may also shed
light on other more basic questions of interest to psychologists, such as the interface
between cognition and emotion, comprehension of ambiguous meaning, and cogni-
tive aspects of nonverbal as well as verbal interpersonal communication. Research
questions relating to cognitive aspects of humor could form the basis of a good many
Masters and PhD theses for years to come.
CHAPTER
s
s I have noted previously, humor is fun-
damentally a social phenomenon. We laugh and joke much more frequently when we
are with other people than when we are alone (R. A. Martin and Kuiper, 1999; Provine
and Fischer, 1989). Those rare occasions when we do laugh by ourselves typically
involve "pseudo-social" situations, such as reading a book, watching a television
program, or recalling an amusing experience with other people. The interpersonal
aspects of humor are of particular interest to social psychology, which has been defined
as "the scientific study of how individuals' thoughts, feelings, and behaviors are influ-
enced by other people" (Breckler, Olson, and Wiggins, 2006, p. 5). As we will see in
this chapter, humor is one of the methods that people use to influence each other in
a complex variety of ways. Social psychologists study such topics as social perception,
interpersonal attraction, communication, attitudes, prejudice, persuasion, close rela-
tionships, group processes, and so on. It is easy to see that humor can play an impor-
tant role in all of these areas.
Social psychology is closely related to several other academic disciplines, includ-
ing sociology, anthropology, and linguistics, each of which has made important con-
tributions to our understanding of social aspects of humor. In this chapter, I will
therefore discuss some of the contributions of these other disciplines along with those
of psychology. I will begin by discussing humor as a method of interpersonal com-
munication and influence, followed by an overview of its many social functions, and
an exploration of how these relate to humorous forms of teasing. I will then examine
113
THE SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY OF HUMOR
social aspects of laughter, the vocal and facial expression of the humor-related emotion
of mirth. In the remainder of the chapter, I will review research findings on the role
of humor in several of the major topic areas of social psychology, including social per-
ception and interpersonal attraction, persuasion, attitudes and prejudice, intimate
relationships, and gender.
HUMOR AS SOCIAL INTERACTION
Many of the traditional theories and much of the early research on the psychol-
ogy of humor neglected the interpersonal aspects, focusing instead on cognitive and
emotional processes taking place within the individual. Most of the early studies exam-
ined participants' reactions to jokes and cartoons in the laboratory, which does not
provide much information about how humor is normally expressed in everyday social
interactions. In recent years, however, researchers in psychology, as well as other dis-
ciplines, have been giving more attention to social aspects of humor, examining in
particular its functions in interpersonal communication and influence. This change in
perspective has been accompanied by a shift in focus away from canned jokes as the
prototype of humor to other forms that occur spontaneously in the course of ordi-
nary conversation, such as teasing, irony, and witty banter.
I have been suggesting in this book that humor is best viewed as a form of play
that comprises cognitive (nonserious incongruity), emotional (mirth), and expressive
(laughter) components. All of these elements of humor have a social dimension. The
nonserious incongruities that elicit humor typically have to do with funny things that
people say or do. Jokes are almost always about people, not animals or inanimate
objects. The emotion of mirth is also typically shared with other people (see Figure
3). As Michelle Shiota and her colleagues (2004) have suggested, the shared experi-
ence of mirth serves important social functions in establishing and maintaining close
relationships, enhancing feelings of attraction and commitment, and coordinating
mutually beneficial activities. Laughter is also inherently social, communicating one's
mirthful emotional state to others as well as inducing this emotion in one's listeners
(Owren and Bachorowski, 2003; Russell et al., 2003). Thus, while humor is a form of
play that we enjoy for its own sake, it also serves important social functions that likely
contributed to our evolutionary survival. As I suggested in Chapter 1, some of the
social functions of humor may be co-optations in which, with the emergence of higher
linguistic and cognitive abilities and more complex social organization, play-related
mirthful activities were adapted in human evolution for a wide variety of purposes
having to do with interpersonal communication and influence (Gervais and Wilson,
2005).
Sociologist Michael Mulkay (1988) suggested that people interact with one
another using two basic modes of communication: serious and humorous (referred to
by Victor Raskin, 1985, as the "bona-fide" and "non-bona-fide" modes, respectively).
According to Mulkay, both of these are ordinary, everyday methods of discourse, but
they operate according to fundamentally different principles. In the serious mode, we
HUMOR AS SOCIAL INTERACTION
FIGU RE 3 Most humor occurs spontaneously in the context of ordinary social interactions.
© Monica Lau/Getty Images/PhotoDisc
attempt to be logically consistent and coherent, we seek to avoid ambiguity and con-
tradiction, and we assume that there is a unitary external reality that is shared by every-
one. However, this mode of communication is often inadequate, since different
individuals and groups often have quite different perceptions of reality and disagree
about their interpretations of events. When people attempt to communicate, these
multiple realities frequently collide, producing contradiction, incongruity, and inco-
herence, which the serious mode of discourse is unable to handle easily.
According to Mulkay, the social play activity of humor was co-opted over the
course of human evolution as a way for people to deal with this multiplicity and
inherent contradiction in their communications with one another. Making use of
Arthur Koestler's (1964) concept of bisociation (discussed in Chapters 1, 3, and 4),
Mulkay views humor as a way of incorporating, embracing, and even celebrating the
contradictions, incongruities, and ambiguities inherent in interpersonal relationships.
By simultaneously expressing opposite meanings, the humorous mode provides a
shared conceptual framework that embraces contradictions, rather than avoiding
them, and thereby enables people to negotiate otherwise difficult interpersonal
transactions.
For example, humorous joking and playful teasing can be a way for spouses or
other partners in a close relationship to communicate about a topic on which they
strongly disagree, instead of using the more serious mode and getting into endless
arguments that cannot resolve the issue and only lead to an escalation of anger and
bitterness, destabilizing the relationship. The humorous mode allows them to express
their strongly opposing views and acknowledge their conflict while, at the very same
time, communicating an opposite message about their continuing commitment to the
relationship. Thus, their humor is a way of playing with, and laughing about, the
THE SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY OF HUMOR
incongruity inherent in the contradictory feelings and attitudes that they simultane-
ously hold toward one another. The positive feelings of mirth generated by this per-
ception of playful incongruity, and the laughter that they share, help to maintain
cohesion and positive feelings about the relationship, despite their differing views.
This is just one example of the many ways humor enables people, in many different
kinds of relationships, to communicate information about their beliefs, attitudes,
motives, feelings, and needs, which may not be as amenable to the serious mode
of discourse. Not only does this mode of communication convey information, but it
also induces mirth and laughter, further influencing the attitudes and feelings of
others.
As noted in Chapter 1 , humor is a ubiquitous form of interaction that occurs in
all types of social contexts and takes many different forms. These include canned jokes,
amusing personal anecdotes, spontaneous witty comments, ironic observations, puns,
teasing, sarcasm, double entendres, and so on. Humor can also be evoked uninten-
tionally, such as when people laugh in response to someone misusing a word or behav-
ing in a clumsy manner (e.g., tripping, or spilling a drink). All of these forms of humor
can serve important interpersonal functions.
INTERPERSONAL FUNCTIONS OF HUMOR
Anthropologists studying preliterate societies have noted the widespread existence
of "joking relationships" (Radcliffe-Brown, 1952) in which individuals who are related
in particular ways are expected to interact with humor, including joking, teasing,
banter, ridicule, and practical jokes (see Apte, 1985, for a review of this research). For
example, joking relationships occur in various cultures between individuals who are
potential sexual partners, between a man and his brothers-in-law, between grandpar-
ents and grandchildren, or between members of different clans. Although the form
and pattern of joking relationships vary across cultures, they all seem to serve an
important function of regulating social interactions and maintaining social harmony
and stability. A number of ethnographic studies suggest that similar kinds of joking
relationships commonly exist in industrialized societies as well, as in the sorts of joking
and teasing relationships that develop in work settings and in friendship groups to
establish group identity and exclude outsiders (Apte, 1985).
Humor serves a variety of functions, not only in these sorts of joking relation-
ships, but in all types of interpersonal interactions (Kane et al., 1977; Long and
Graesser, 1988; Martineau, 1972; Norrick, 1993). Most of these have to do with the
fact that it is inherently ambiguous and even contradictory, and can therefore be inter-
preted in several different ways at the same time. When someone says something in
a humorous way, he or she can always take it back by saying "I was only joking."
Indeed, since everyone recognizes the ambiguous nature of humor, it is often not even
necessary to make such a disclaimer. In this way, humor enables individuals to "save
face" for themselves and others. The concept of "face" comes from Erving Goffrnan's
(1967) analyses of social interactions. Goffman defined face as "an image of self delin-
eated in terms of approved social attributes" (p. 5). He noted that people are strongly
INTERPERSONAL FUNCTIONS OF HUMOR
motivated to avoid communications that are potentially face-threatening, putting
themselves or others in an awkward or embarrassing situation. Because of its ambi-
guity and potential for retraction, humor, like politeness, can be a useful tactic for
protecting the face of oneself and others, thus playing an important role in facilitat-
ing social interaction (Keltner et al., 1998; Zajdman, 1995).
It is important to note that when we speak of humor being "used" for particular
purposes, this does not mean that individuals are always consciously aware of these
functions or are using it in a volitional, strategic manner. Since it is usually sponta-
neous and unplanned, individuals typically perceive their experiences of humor to be
nothing more than playful fun. Nonetheless, in many instances, humor may be serving
various purposes of which the individuals involved are not fully aware. Indeed, the
ability to deny any serious intentions, even to oneself, is part of what makes humor
so effective in many types of social interaction.
These uses of humor in communication can have any number of different
purposes. In a ground-breaking early paper on this topic, social psychologists Thomas
Kane, Jerry Suls, and James Tedeschi (1977) observed that humor "can help the
source to claim or disclaim responsibility for his actions, can reveal courage or relieve
embarrassment, may invoke normative commitments or release the individual from
commitments" (p. 13). In the following sections, I will discuss several of the inter-
personal functions of humor that have been identified. These are not mutually exclu-
sive, since any given instance of humor may serve more than one function at the same
time.
Self-Disclosure, Social Probing, and Norm Violation
Kane and colleagues (1977) noted that we are continually exploring our social
environments in order to determine the values, attitudes, knowledge, emotional states,
motives, and intentions of others. This sort of information is necessary for achieving
our goals in interactions with others, whether these are to increase intimacy, obtain
desired favors and rewards, or exert influence over others. Because of the potential
"face threat" involved, the unspoken rules of social propriety often make it difficult
or uncomfortable to ask direct questions about these sorts of issues. There is a risk
that our motives will be misconstrued, that we will be resented for our intrusiveness,
or that we or others will be embarrassed in some way. Humor can often be a more
acceptable and indirect way of gaining such information. By making a humorous
remark about certain attitudes, feelings, or opinions, we can reveal something about
ourselves in a way that allows us to deny it if it is not well received. Moreover, by
observing whether or not others respond with laughter or reciprocate with similar
humorous comments, we can ascertain whether they share similar views.
The communication of attitudes and motives relating to sex is often particularly
fraught with risks of misunderstanding and rejection, and humor is often used to deal
with these problems. This is likely why there are so many words with alternate sexual
meanings, allowing people to use humorous double entendre and innuendo to discuss
sexual matters in a safe way (Long and Graesser, 1988). In an observational study of
conversations among customers and staff in an all-night diner in upstate New York,
THE SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY OF HUMOR
sociologist Alf Walle (1976) described the way humor was used by men and women
to express interest in a possible sexual liaison. If they were to use serious modes of
communication in this context, participants would run the risk of causing offense to
the other person and being personally humiliated by rejection. However, by telling
sexual jokes and making humorous comments containing sexual innuendo, they were
able to probe the other person's level of interest in a way that enabled them to save
face if their interest was not reciprocated.
This role of humor as self-disclosure and social probing in sexual communication
was also illustrated in an early experiment by social psychologists Jay Davis and
Amerigo Farina (1970). Male college students were asked by either an attractive or
an unattractive female experimenter to rate the funniness of either aggressive or sexual
cartoons. The ratings were either given orally to the experimenter or on paper-and-
pencil scales. The results indicated that the highest funniness ratings were given by
the male participants when they were rating sexual cartoons orally to the attractive
female. The researchers suggested that these responses to humor provided a socially
acceptable method for the participants to let the experimenter know that they were
sexually interested in her.
Besides sexual topics, humor can be used to self-disclose and probe beliefs and
attitudes regarding a wide variety of issues, such as political and religious views and
attitudes toward people of different ethnicities, nationalities, occupations, or gender.
By making a racist or sexist comment in a humorous manner, an individual can probe
the degree to which such attitudes are tolerated or shared by others. Humor can also
be used to probe people's emotional reactions to situations. For example, during times
of stress or danger (e.g., in a high-pressure work situation or prior to a battle during
wartime) where showing distress or fear might be construed as weakness, gallows
humor may be used to probe the degree to which others are experiencing negative
emotions (Kane et al., 1977). Thus, humor can be a useful tool for social compari-
son, a process whereby we seek information about others in order to evaluate our own
feelings and performance (Morse and Gergen, 1970).
Humor can also be used to push the boundaries of social propriety, attack "sacred
cows," and rebel against social norms. For example, by using obscenities or other types
of shocking language in a humorous manner, one is able to violate social norms in a
way that reduces the likelihood that others will take offense, since everyone knows
that humor is not to be taken seriously. Thus, one is more likely to get away with
breaking various taboos, expressing prejudiced attitudes, or engaging in boorish
behavior if these are done in a humorous rather than a serious manner. When carried
into the public domain, iconoclastic forms of humor such as satire and comedy can
be used to challenge widely held assumptions, expose social ills, and bring about social
change (Ziv, 1984).
Decommitment
People often use humor to save face when they experience some sort of failure,
when they are about to be unmasked in some way, or when they have been caught in
INTERPERSONAL FUNCTIONS OF HUMOR
a lie or are found to have engaged in inappropriate behavior (Kane et al., 1977). By
using humor to indicate that the proposed or past action was intended as a joke and
was therefore not meant to be taken seriously, one can save face by "decommitting"
oneself from the action. For example, if Person A threatens Person B in some way
and this provokes a counter-threat from Person B, Person A can back down by turning
the original threat into a joke. Alternatively, if Person B does not comply with the
original threat and it comes time for Person A to back up the threat ("put up or shut
up"), he or she can use humor instead of carrying out the threat, thus avoiding an
escalation of conflict in the relationship while still maintaining his or her reputation
for credibility. By laughing in response to the humor, Person B in turn indicates a
tacit agreement to treat the original threat as nonserious. Similarly, two friends who
have allowed a disagreement to escalate into an argument can, by interjecting a
humorous remark, relieve the tension and avoid the loss of face that would occur if
either one was forced to back down (Long and Graesser, 1988).
Over the course of a year in a small community in Newfoundland, Craig Palmer
(1993) conducted an observational study of males playing floor hockey, a rough sport
involving quite a lot of verbal and physical aggression. He found that, while engag-
ing in overtly aggressive actions, middle-aged players (who were more concerned with
establishing and maintaining friendships with each other) were more likely to display
humor (smiling, laughter, and humorous comments) as compared to adolescents and
young adults, who were more concerned with competition. In addition, humor was
more likely to accompany aggressive behaviors between players with marked differ-
ences in skill level, as compared to those of equal skill. This is presumably because
confrontations between individuals with discrepancies in skill present more potential
for one person being hurt or embarrassed. Thus, the use of humor with what would
otherwise be interpreted as aggressive or provocative actions appeared to be a form
of decommitment, a way for participants to communicate that the action was not
to be taken seriously, and to reassure each other of the friendly nature of their
relationship.
Social Norms and Control
Besides being used to test and even violate social norms, Long and Graesser
(1988) pointed out that humor can be used to enforce social norms and indirectly
exert control over others' behavior. By using irony, teasing, sarcasm, or satire to make
fun of certain attitudes, behaviors, or personality traits, members of a group can com-
municate implicit expectations and rules concerning the kinds of behavior that are
considered acceptable within the group. These types of humor can take the form of
ridiculing members of an out-group, or they can be directed at deviant behaviors of
individuals within an in-group (Martineau, 1972). Either way, this humor can have a
coercive function, intimidating group members into conforming to the implied norms
out of fear of embarrassment.
Similarly, humor can also be used as an "unmasking tactic" (Kane et al., 1977).
By poking fun at another person, one is communicating a refusal to accept the
THE SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY OF HUMOR
identity projected by that person, exposing or belittling his or her motives. Since the
message is communicated in a humorous way, and is therefore subject to multiple
interpretations simultaneously, it is difficult for the target to retaliate or to hold the
source accountable for embarrassing him or her. Thus, a humorous communication
reduces the risk of hostility and rancor that might be generated using a more serious
mode of communication in confrontation. I will discuss teasing in greater detail later
in the chapter.
Dews, Kaplan, and Winner (1995) conducted several experiments to investigate
the effects of using irony, as compared to direct statements, to deliver both criticisms
and compliments. An example of an ironic criticism is saying "Great game" to a person
who has played poorly, whereas an ironic compliment would be "You sure sucked in
that game" after someone has played particularly well. Not surprisingly, the studies
showed that ironic statements are perceived as more humorous than direct statements.
More importantly, irony also seemed to mute the message conveyed by literal
language: ironic criticism was perceived as less aggressive and insulting than direct
criticism, whereas ironic compliments were perceived as less positive than direct
compliments. Thus, irony can have a social control function, enabling people to
express both criticism and praise indirectly and ambiguously, avoiding loss of face for
speakers and listeners in the process.
Status and Hierarchy Maintenance
The role of humor in controlling behavior and enforcing social norms also implies
that it can be used by individuals to reinforce their own status in a group hierarchy.
For example, you are more likely to crack jokes and amuse others in a group in which
you are the leader or have a position of dominance than in a group in which you have
lower status and less power than others. In a frequently cited early study, sociologist
Rose Laub Coser (1960) observed the use of humor during staff meetings in a psy-
chiatric hospital. She found that humor in this context served to reinforce the hier-
archical structure of the relationships among staff members. Higher-status senior staff
(psychiatrists) were much more likely to use humor than were junior staff (psychiatric
residents or nurses), and they frequently directed their humor at junior staff in a way
that conveyed a critical or corrective message. In turn, the junior staff members
refrained from directing humor at senior staff, but instead tended to use it either in
a self-deprecating manner or as a way of making fun of outsiders. Coser concluded
that humor helps to "overcome the contradictions and ambiguities inherent in the
complex social structure, and thereby to contribute to its maintenance" (p. 95). These
findings were replicated more recently in another study of humor among staff
members in a psychiatric unit (Sayre, 2001).
Dawn Robinson and Lynn Smith-Lovin (2001) used a statistical technique called
event history regression to analyze the use of humor during conversations in 29 six-
person task groups that were instructed to work together on a problem. The data sup-
ported a model of humor as a status-related activity. Individuals who more frequently
interrupted others in conversation (a behavior that indicates higher status) were also
INTERPERSONAL FUNCTIONS OF HUMOR
more likely to engage in humor and make others laugh, even after controlling for the
frequency of overall participation in group discussion. Conversely, those who were
more frequently interrupted by others (reflecting their lower status) were less likely
to produce humor. There was also evidence that the use of humor early on in the
group discussion was a means for participants to establish status in the group hierar-
chy. In mixed-sex groups, males (who tended to be more dominant in a variety of
ways) were more likely to express humor than were females, and were more likely to
elicit laughter from others. The status differences in traditional male and female
gender roles may explain the findings of many studies (which I will discuss later in
the chapter) showing that men tend to produce humor more than women, whereas
women tend to laugh more in response to men's humor.
The use of humor to maintain a position of dominance is also evident in an ethno-
graphic study by James Spradley and Brenda Mann (1975) of interactions between
bartenders and waitresses in an American bar. Much of the humor that occurred in
these interactions took the form of ridicule, sexual insults, and lewd comments, and
was directed by the male bartenders toward the female waitresses. The authors dis-
cussed this humor in terms of joking relationships, seeing it as a way of relieving ten-
sions resulting from structurally created conflict in the relationships. However,
Mulkay (1988) pointed out that, rather than relieving tension for the women, the
humor tended to increase their frustration, and was primarily a strategy adopted
by the men to sustain their domination over the women. The women were not
permitted to take offense at the bartenders' ribald and denigrating remarks, whereas
the men could object when a "girl" went "too far" with her humorous comments.
These types of humor, which today would likely be viewed as workplace harassment,
have long been used to reinforce the subordinate position of women and members
of disadvantaged minority groups. Because the denigration occurs in a humorous
rather than a serious mode, it is difficult for the targets to complain, since the
sources can claim that they were "only joking." Indeed, the sources may even con-
vince themselves that it is "all in fun," and that the targets really have no reason to
take offense.
Ingratiation
Whereas humor may be used by higher-status individuals to maintain dominance
over others, it can also be used by lower-status persons as an ingratiation tactic to gain
attention, approval, and favors from others (Kane et al., 1977). Ingratiation refers to
behaviors such as other-enhancement, opinion conformity, self-deprecation, and
feigned interpersonal similarity, which are used to garner favors from a higher-status
person. When done in a serious communication mode, ingratiation runs the risk of
having one's insincerity unmasked, especially when there is considerable advantage to
be gained and when the target's status is very high. However, if ingratiation is done
in a humorous way, such as using a "backhanded compliment," there is less likelihood
that the source will be exposed as insincere (Long and Graesser, 1988, p. 54). For
example, to avoid sounding ingratiating, one might say to a basketball star, "You would
THE SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY OF HUMOR
make a great basketball player if you could only learn to dribble the ball," rather than
"You are an amazing player."
Laughing at another person's jokes can also be a form of ingratiation. The higher
the status of a public speaker, the more likely are his or her jokes and funny anecdotes
to evoke laughter in the audience (Kane et al., 1977). In addition, ingratiation may
involve efforts to amuse others at one's own expense, engaging in silly or inappropri-
ate behavior to get a laugh from others, making excessively self-disparaging witty com-
ments, or laughing along with others when one is the target of their teasing or ridicule.
As we will see in Chapter 9, individuals who frequently engage in this sort of "self-
defeating humor", although they may be very funny and witty, tend to have low self-
esteem and high neuroticism and have difficulties maintaining satisfactory personal
relationships (R. A. Martin et al., 2003).
Group Identity and Cohesion
Although humor can be used to reinforce status differences between people, it
can also be a way of enhancing cohesion and a sense of group identity. Gary Alan Fine
(1977) used the term idioculture to describe the system of knowledge, beliefs, and
customs by which a small group of people defines itself and enables its members to
share a sense of belonging and cohesion. He suggested that humor, in the form of
friendly teasing, funny nicknames, shared "in-jokes," and slang terms, can contribute
to the idioculture of a group, providing a way for members to construct a shared reality
and sense of meaning. This function of humor also occurs in close dyads, such as
married couples, for whom private humor can create a shared identity and thus
strengthen their feelings of cohesion.
In task-oriented groups such as those found in work settings, interactions among
members have two important functions: (1) to accomplish group goals and (2) to main-
tain smooth relations (Robinson and Smith-Lovin, 2001). Humor may help group
members to maintain smooth relations by serving as a stress reliever when the pres-
sures of task accomplishment begin to build. In a field study of humor among employ-
ees in a small, family-owned business, Karen Vinton (1989) observed that humor
tended to create bonds among the employees and thereby facilitated the accomplish-
ment of work tasks.
Jenepher Terrion and Blake Ashforth (2002) examined the role of "putdown
humor" in an observational study of a six-week executive development course for
senior police officers at the Canadian Police College in Ottawa. They concluded that,
rather than having a disruptive effect, putdown humor "played a prominent role in
melding this temporary group into a more or less cohesive unit" (p. 80). They
observed a progression in the targets of humor over the six weeks, from putdowns of
oneself to putdowns of shared identities, external groups, and, finally, other group
members. The use of putdown humor appeared to be influenced by a set of implicit
social rules regarding the appropriate targets, methods, and responses, which served
to maintain self-esteem and a positive group climate.
INTERPERSONAL FUNCTIONS OF HUMOR
For example, putdowns of group members targeted relatively inconsequential
characteristics, and were only directed toward those individuals who did not take
offense but demonstrated an ability to laugh along in a good-natured way. Interest-
ingly, when group members were later interviewed about particular humorous
exchanges that had taken place within the group, they often had differing interpreta-
tions about the meaning of the event, but assumed that their own interpretations were
shared by everyone else. Thus, the multiplicity and ambiguity of meaning in humor
seemed to enable group members to interact as if they shared common perceptions,
thereby fostering a sense of community despite their actual differences in perspective.
The authors of this study observed that humor seemed to serve the function of a col-
lective social ritual that was governed by implicit norms and enhanced the sense of
group solidarity.
Discourse Management
During the course of a conversation, participants need to attend not only to the
content of what is being said, but they also need to monitor and manage the flow of
the conversation (Ervin-Tripp, 1993). Conversations are mutual activities that require
the cooperation of all participants to make the discussion intelligible and satisfactory.
This involves such discourse activities as turn-taking, exchanging control, setting the
tone or style of the conversation, introducing topics, shifting topics, checking for
meaning, eye gaze, repetition, paraphrasing, and terminating the conversation.
Humor may be used for many of these purposes.
In research using the method of conversational analysis, Neal Norrick (1993)
studied these functions in some detail, observing the way humor can be used to shift
the conversation away from a threatening topic, to change the tone of the conversa-
tion from one that is serious to one that is more lighthearted, and so on. As one
example, making a pun based on multiple meanings of a word that has been used in
a conversation can be a way for one person to humorously call attention to the ambi-
guity in something another person has said. Humor can also be used to initiate con-
versations in situations in which there is little shared knowledge between the
participants (e.g., strangers). For example, a witty comment about the weather might
generate further conversation, whereas a more serious comment that simply states the
obvious might seem trite (Long and Graesser, 1988).
Discourse management functions of humor were studied by social psychologist
John La Gaipa (1977) at the University of Windsor in Canada, who videotaped 22
small groups of male friends engaging in spontaneous conversations in a college pub.
Sequential analyses revealed that when one group member made a humorous
comment, this typically resulted in a significant increase in the conversational tempo,
or rate of participation of all the group members, immediately afterwards. The type
and target of the humor affected the tempo in various ways. For example, when the
humor involved friendly putdowns, it led to a greater increase in tempo if it was
directed at a group member (i.e., friendly teasing of someone within the group) than
THE SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY OF HUMOR
if it was in reference to someone outside the group. However, this pattern was reversed
when the humor was more hostile or aggressive. When directed at a person within
the group, this type of sarcastic humor led to a reduction in the rate of conversation,
whereas nasty humorous remarks about someone outside the group led to an increased
tempo. These different types of humor also produced different amounts of laughter,
but the effects of humor on the flow of conversation remained even after controlling
for the amount of laughter generated.
Depending on whether or not participants share the same goals in a conversa-
tion, the use of humor in discourse management can be disruptive to conversation as
well as facilitative. For example, individuals who frequently make puns in response to
ambiguous words of others can be quite disruptive to the flow of the conversation,
diverting the focus away from the current topic and toward their own cleverness. Sim-
ilarly, joke-telling can be a way of taking control of a conversation for a relatively
extended period of time, putting on a performance to which listeners are expected to
respond with approving laughter (Norrick, 2003). If other participants in the con-
versation desire a more serious mode of discussion or a more equitable give-and-take,
these uses of humor may be viewed as intrusive and even aggressive.
Social Play
Besides these "serious" functions of humor in social interactions, humor can also
be enjoyed purely for its own sake as a pleasurable form of social play. This type of
humor most frequently occurs in groups of friends or close acquaintances of equal
status in informal settings. As previously noted, Michael Apter (1982) viewed humor
as a playful paratelic activity that is enjoyed for its own sake, as opposed to the serious,
goal-oriented, arousal-avoidant telic mode of functioning in which we find ourselves
during much of our daily lives.
In engaging in humor as social play, participants typically abandon, at least tem-
porarily, any serious conversational goals. Playing off one another, they amuse them-
selves with the multiple meanings of words and ideas, relating funny anecdotes about
incongruous events and experiences, and often using exaggeration, gestures, and facial
expressions to maximize the humorous effect. Participants often experience high levels
of mirth, and laughter can be loud and unconstrained during these times. While such
humor is enjoyed for its own sake, it nonetheless often serves additional interpersonal
functions of enhancing group cohesiveness, laughing at outsiders, and strengthening
social bonds.
TEASING
Teasing is a particular form of humor that serves many of the interpersonal func-
tions just discussed. Like other types of humor, teasing is paradoxical, combining both
prosocial and aggressive functions. As Keltner and his colleagues (1998) noted,
"teasing criticizes yet compliments, attacks yet makes people closer, humiliates yet
TEASING
expresses affection" (p. 1231). According to Shapiro, Baumeister, and Kessler (1991),
teasing comprises three components: aggression, humor, and ambiguity. In recent
years, a considerable amount of research attention has been devoted to teasing by
social psychologists as well as sociologists, anthropologists, and linguists (for reviews,
see Keltner et al., 2001; Kowalski et al., 2001).
Social psychologist Dacher Keltner and his colleagues (2001) proposed a "face
threat" analysis of teasing, conceptualizing it in terms of Goffman's (1967) ideas about
the importance of saving face in social interactions, particularly those interactions that
involve confrontation or communication of information that is potentially embar-
rassing to the speaker or listener. They defined teasing as "an intentional provocation
accompanied by playful off-record markers that together comment on something rel-
evant to the target" (p. 234). In this definition, "provocation" refers to the fact that
teasing is a verbal or nonverbal act that is intended to have some effect and to elicit
a reaction from the target. Off-record markers are the verbal and nonverbal cues (such
as smiling, exaggeration, or certain vocal inflections) that accompany a tease and indi-
cate that it is to be taken in jest, making it a humorous as well as an ambiguous com-
munication that is delivered indirectly rather than directly (P. Brown and Levinson,
1987). The humorous and ambiguous nature of teasing enables the source to say
things that would be face-threatening and potentially unacceptable if communicated
in a serious mode, since the source can always say "I was just joking" if the commu-
nication is not well received by the target.
Teasing can be used for a number of different purposes, ranging from prosocial
and friendly to hostile and malicious. The aggressiveness of the tease depends on the
degree of identity confrontation and the amount of ambiguity and humor that are
present (Kowalski et al., 2001). In playful, friendly teasing, close friends might say
things to one another that, if taken literally, would appear to be rather demeaning or
critical. The playful manner of the tease, however, communicates that the message is
not intended to be taken literally and, indeed, the opposite meaning is intended: the
source actually means to compliment the target in an ironic way. This playful aggres-
sion is similar to play fighting among children and young animals. Rather than being
aggressive, the unspoken subtext in such friendly teasing is an affirmation of the
strength of the relationship between the two individuals, calling attention to the fact
that they are close enough that they can say negative things and not take offense. The
laughter of both the source and the target signals that the tease is not taken seriously
by either, and this can help to increase further the feelings of closeness (Terrion and
Ashforth, 2002).
This sort of friendly teasing is also seen in "roasts," in which friends and cowork-
ers take turns humorously belittling a guest of honor, as well as in humorous greet-
ing cards that indirectly convey feelings of affection and sentimentality in the guise
of an overtly insulting message (Oring, 1994). Since teasing is seen as inappropriate
between people who do not know each other well, this sort of friendly teasing can
also be a way for individuals to signal a desire to move an acquaintanceship to a more
intimate level of friendship. Although these forms of teasing are essentially nonag-
gressive, however, there is always a potential for them to backfire if the recipient
THE SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY OF HUMOR
misperceives the humorous intention or for some reason takes the message seriously.
Also, even the most friendly teasing tends to elicit less positive feelings in the target
than in the source of the teasing (Keltner et al., 1998).
Practical jokes are another form of humor closely related to this sort of friendly
teasing. Whereas teasing involves saying things that would normally be viewed as
somewhat insulting, practical jokes involve playing tricks on another person that
would normally be viewed as rather unkind. Like teasing, practical jokes can be a way
of indirectly demonstrating (or testing) the strength of a relationship, showing that
partners feel good enough about each other that they can put up with these playful
inconveniences. If the target takes offense, the source can say "it was all in fun," and
back away gracefully. On the other hand, if the target responds with laughter, this
affirmation of goodwill and tolerance generates feelings of greater closeness between
them. Since the source of a practical joke tends to enjoy it more and finds it funnier
than the target does, the target typically feels a need to respond in kind, in order to
"even the score." Consequently, practical joking can become a kind of tit-for-tat game,
in which each person tries to think up ever more outrageous tricks to play on the
other. As long as the participants continue to enjoy it, this game adds pleasure to
the friendship. However, there is always a risk that practical joking might escalate
to the point where it is no longer enjoyable to one of the partners, potentially
destabilizing the relationship.
A somewhat more aggressive form of teasing, which often takes place between
close friends, romantic partners, or parents and children, involves its use as a mild
form of censure, communicating disapproval of some aspect of the target's habits,
behaviors, or preferences (Keltner et al., 1998). For example, if a person perceives a
friend to be overly demanding or rigid, he or she might use teasing as a way of drawing
attention to the excessiveness of this behavior. This use of humor allows both the
source and the target to save face, diminishing the risk of defensiveness on the part
of the target and increasing the likelihood of compliance. Thus, this form of teasing
involves the use of humor as a form of social influence. Studies have shown that recip-
ients of this sort of teasing usually respond in a serious way to the underlying message,
explaining or justifying the targeted behavior, rather than laughing along with the
source (Keltner et al., 1998).
In even more aggressive forms of teasing, the confrontation becomes more direct,
and the humor and ambiguity of the message are reduced. In its most aggressive forms,
teasing can take the form of bullying (Whitney and Smith, 1993) and even violent
behavior (Arriaga, 2002). Even at these more aggressive levels, though, the humor-
ous nature of teasing allows the source to disclaim the aggressive intent, claiming that
the communication was intended as a joke, and thereby making it difficult for the
target to take offense. These aggressive forms of teasing can therefore be very coer-
cive and manipulative.
Keltner and his associates at the University of California at Berkeley conducted
two experiments to investigate hypotheses derived from their face-threat analysis of
teasing (Keltner et al., 1998). In one study, they asked high- and low-status members
of a college fraternity to generate teasing comments about one another and rate their
feelings afterwards. As predicted, low-status members teased in more prosocial ways,
while high-status members were more aggressive. Overall, most teasing concerned
negative rather than positive characteristics, consistent with the idea that teasing is
generally used to point out flaws and norm violations in the target. However, when
positive characteristics did appear as the topic of teasing, this was more likely to occur
when low-status sources teased high-status targets, rather than the other way around.
Not surprisingly, individuals with higher scores on a measure of the personality trait
of agreeableness tended to use less aggressive forms of teasing. The aggressive nature
of teasing was also seen in the fact that targets reported and displayed more negative
emotions than did the sources. Furthermore, low-status members showed more
embarrassment, pain, and fear in their facial expressions, whereas high-status
members showed more hostility, both when teasing and when being teased.
In the second study, a similar methodology was used with heterosexual dating
couples who were asked to generate teases about each other. Individuals who were
less satisfied with their relationship teased their partners in more aggressive ways. As
in the previous study, teasing was more frequently about negative than positive char-
acteristics of the target, and targets of teasing displayed more negative emotions than
did sources. More prosocial teasing produced more positive emotional responses in
both targets and sources. Although men and women did not differ in the aggressive-
ness of their teasing, women experienced more negative and less positive feelings in
response to being teased by their male partners. Overall, these studies provided
support for the view of teasing as a way of expressing censure and dominance in a
face-saving way.
How does aggressive teasing affect observers who are not themselves the target
of the teasing? Leslie Janes and James Olson (2000), social psychologists at the Uni-
versity of Western Ontario, conducted two experiments in which they examined the
inhibiting effects of observing another person being ridiculed in a humorous way (i.e.,
teased), which they referred to as "jeer pressure." In both experiments, they had uni-
versity students watch videotapes depicting a male actor either ridiculing another
person, or directing the same humorous disparaging remarks at himself, or using
nondisparaging humor. In both studies, those who had viewed the other-disparaging
videotape, as compared to those in the other two groups, subsequently exhibited
greater inhibition in their performance on several tasks. In particular, they showed
greater conformity with the views of others in a rating task and, on a ring-toss task,
they revealed greater fear of failure as demonstrated by less willingness to take risks.
In addition, they responded more quickly to rejection-related words on a lexical deci-
sion task, indicating activation of a rejection schema.
Janes and Olson interpreted their findings as demonstrating that seeing someone
else being ridiculed or aggressively teased makes people perceive themselves to be at
increased risk of rejection themselves, and consequently they avoid behaving in ways
that might make them stand out and become a potential target of teasing too. The
strength of these effects is quite remarkable, considering the fact that the subjects
were merely watching a videotape and therefore the likelihood of being targets of
teasing themselves was minimal. Overall, this study indicates that aggressive teasing
THE SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY OF HUMOR
can have a detrimental effect not only on the targets of negative teasing but also on
those who observe another person being teased.
SOCIAL ASPECTS OF LAUGHTER
As noted in Chapter 1, laughter is an expressive behavior signaling the presence
of the emotion of mirth. The reason it is so loud and comprises unique sounds and
facial expressions is because it is a method of communication, designed to capture the
attention of others, to convey important emotional information, and to activate similar
emotions in others. Thus, laughter is inherently social. Research indicates that people
are 30 times more likely to laugh when they are with others than when they are alone
(Provine and Fischer, 1989). Laughter originated long before the development of lan-
guage as a method of communication. Thus, it seems to be "a unique and ancient
mode of prelinguistic auditory communication that is now performed in parallel with
modern speech and language" (Provine, 1992, p. 1).
What is the interpersonal function of laughter? As noted in Chapter 1 , it appears
to have evolved in humans from the rapid, breathy panting vocalization seen in chim-
panzees and other apes during rough-and-tumble social play, which is accompanied
by the relaxed open-mouth display or "play face" (Preuschoft and van Hooff, 1997;
van Hooff and Preuschoft, 2003). A number of theorists have therefore suggested that
laughter is a communication signal designed to indicate to others that one is experi-
encing the playful emotional state of mirth. In this view, the meaning of laughter is
to convey the message "This is play" (e.g., van Hooff, 1972).
More recently, however, some researchers have proposed an affect-induction view,
arguing that laughter not only conveys cognitive information to others but it also
serves the function of inducing and accentuating positive emotions in others, in order
to influence their behavior and promote a more favorable attitude toward the one who
is laughing (e.g., Bachorowski and Owren, 2003; Owren and Bachorowski, 2003;
Russell et al., 2003). These authors have suggested that the peculiar sounds of laugh-
ter have a direct effect on the listener, inducing positive emotional arousal that mirrors
the emotional state of the laugher, perhaps by activating certain brain circuits in the
listener (Provine, 1996). Gervais and Wilson (2005) suggested that these brain cir-
cuits may be akin to the mirror neurons, or mirror-matching systems, that have been
the subject of a good deal of recent research in social neuroscience and are thought
to form an important neural basis for human social relationships by enabling
individuals to experience and appreciate the actions and emotions of others
(Rizzolatti and Craighero, 2004). In Chapter 6, I will discuss some recent brain-
imaging studies that investigated the regions of the brain that are activated when we
hear others laughing.
The view of laughter as a means of inducing mirth in others helps to explain why
it is so contagious. When we hear other people laughing heartily, it is difficult not to
begin laughing also. Presumably, it is the emotion of mirth that is "caught" in such
instances of laughter contagion. Hearing others laugh induces this positive emotion,
SOCIAL ASPECTS OF LAUGHTER
which in turn causes us to laugh. Numerous experiments have shown that participants
who are exposed to humorous stimuli (e.g., jokes, cartoons, or comedy films) in the
presence of a laughing person or while listening to recorded laughter, in comparison
to those in no-laughter control conditions, are more likely to laugh themselves and
tend to rate the stimuli as being more funny (G. E. Brown, D. Brown, and Ramos,
1981; Donoghue, McCarrey, and Clement, 1983; Fuller and Sheehy-Skeffington,
1974; G. N. Martin and Gray, 1996; Porterfield et al., 1988). These findings account
for the widespread use of recorded laughter sound tracks accompanying television
comedy programs, which presumably enhance audience enjoyment and perceptions
of funniness. Other experiments have shown that the larger the audience, the more
likely they will be to laugh at a comedy performance, as long as they are not overly
crowded into a small space (Prerost, 1977).
A study by Robert Provine (1992), using a "laughter box," showed that the sound
of laughter alone, without any other humorous stimuli being present, is enough to
trigger laughter in most listeners. However, repeated exposure to the same laughter
recording quickly becomes aversive and no longer elicits laughter after a few repeti-
tions. In a similar vein, Jo-Anne Bachorowski and her colleagues found that laughter
containing variable acoustic properties is rated as more enjoyable by listeners than
laughter that is more repetitious (Bachorowski, Smoski, and Owren, 2001).
Early research on social aspects of laughter consisting primarily of laboratory
studies examined the effects of listening to rather artificial recorded laughter on
people's enjoyment of jokes, cartoons, and comedy films. More recently, however,
investigators have gone out of the laboratory and begun to study spontaneous laugh-
ter occurring in the context of more naturalistic social interactions. In a study reported
by Robert Provine (1993), at the University of Maryland, small groups of people inter-
acting in public places were surreptitiously observed, and each time someone laughed,
the dialogue immediately preceding the laughter was written down. In a sample of
1200 such episodes, laughter was found to occur almost exclusively at the end of com-
pleted sentences rather than in the middle, suggesting that "laughter punctuates
speech" (see Nwokah, Hsu, Davies, and Fogel, 1999, however, for evidence of laugh-
ter co-occurring with speech in mother-infant interactions). Provine also found that
people were significantly more likely to laugh after something they themselves said
than after something said by another person, and that women tended to laugh more
frequently than men.
Interestingly, Provine noted that in these naturalistic conversations most of the
laughter did not occur in response to joke-telling or other obvious structured attempts
at humor. Instead, it frequently followed seemingly mundane statements and ques-
tions (e.g., "It was nice meeting you too," or "What is that supposed to mean?").
Provine therefore argued that much of our everyday laughter actually has little to do
with humor per se, but instead is a social signal of friendliness and positive emotion
generally. It is not clear from this research, however, whether the subjects were actu-
ally perceiving these utterances as being funny (i.e., containing some sort of non-
serious incongruities) and therefore experiencing genuine mirth, or whether their
laughter was simply a friendly social signal as Provine argued (Gervais and Wilson,
THE SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY OF HUMOR
2005). Since Provine only recorded the last sentence spoken before each episode of
laughter, we do not have enough information to know whether the larger conversa-
tional context may have made these statements funny, just as we would not perceive
the humor if we simply heard a series of joke punch lines without the setups. This is
a question that merits further investigation.
In another study of laughter in social interaction, Julia Vettin and Dietmar Todt
(2004), at the Free University of Berlin, tape-recorded 48 hours of conversations
among dyads of friends and strangers in naturalistic settings. They found an average
of 5.8 bouts of laughter occurring in each 10-minute period of conversation, with a
range of 0 to 15 bouts. A laughter bout was defined as the series of "ha-ha-ha" sounds
emitted during a single exhalation. These rates appear to be much higher than the
frequencies that have been reported in self-report daily diary studies of laughter
(Mannell and McMahon, 1982; R. A. Martin and Kuiper, 1999). This suggests that,
when completing such records, people tend to underestimate how frequently they
laugh and may not even notice some of the times when they are laughing. Interest-
ingly, this study found that, on average, participants laughed just as frequently with
strangers as they did with close friends.
As in Provine's (1993) investigations, individuals in Vettin and Todt's study
laughed more frequently following their own utterances than following an utterance
of their conversational partner. Also similar to Provine's findings, speakers generally
did not laugh in the middle of a sentence. However, unlike Provine, this study found
that listeners often laughed while their conversational partners were still speaking.
Acoustical analyses of the laughter revealed a great deal of variability, both within and
between individuals (cf. Bachorowski et al., 2001). In addition, it was found that some
of the acoustical parameters of laughter varied systematically according to the context
and whether the laughter was produced by the speaker or the listener. These findings
further highlight the conversational nature of laughter, indicating that it is a nonver-
bal method of communication.
To study listeners' affective responses to different types of laughter, Jo-Anne
Bachorowski and Michael Owren (2001), at Vanderbilt University, conducted five
experiments in which they asked male and female participants to complete a number
of ratings after listening to recordings of different types of laughs produced by men
and women. These included voiced, harmonically rich songlike laughs, and unvoiced
gruntlike, snortlike, and cacklelike laughs. In each of the studies, the voiced songlike
laughs elicited more positive evaluations than did any of the unvoiced laughs. This
occurred regardless of whether listeners rated their own emotional responses, the
likely responses of others, or perceived attributes of the laughers (e.g., friendliness,
sexiness, or listener's interest in meeting the laugher). Based on these findings,
the authors suggested that the acoustic variability in laughter is important for its
affect-induction function, eliciting a range of different emotional responses in
listeners.
A subsequent study by Moria Smoski and Jo-Anne Bachorowski (2003) also exam-
ined the role of laughter in social interaction. They proposed that "antiphonal" laugh-
ter (i.e., laughter that occurs during or immediately after a social partner's laugh) is
part of an affect-induction process that promotes affiliative, cooperative behavior
HUMOR. SOCIAL PERCEPTION, AND INTERPERSONAL ATTRACTION
between social partners. They hypothesized that antiphonal laughter should therefore
increase in frequency as friendships develop between people. To test this hypothesis,
they audiotaped same-sex and mixed-sex friend and stranger dyads while they played
brief games designed to facilitate laugh production. As predicted, significantly more
antiphonal laughter (controlling for overall laughter rates) occurred in friend dyads
than in stranger dyads. In addition, in mixed-sex dyads, females were more likely to
laugh antiphonally than were males, suggesting that females may be particularly
attuned to positive affective expressions by males.
Taken together, these studies provide considerable support for the view that
laughter is a form of social communication that is used to express positive emotions
and also to elicit positive emotional responses in others. As such, it seems to have an
important social facilitation and bonding function, promoting and helping to syn-
chronize and coordinate social interactions by coupling the emotions of group
members (Gervais and Wilson, 2005; Provine, 1992).
HUMOR, SOCIAL PERCEPTION, AND INTERPERSONAL ATTRACTION
How do we gather information and form impressions of other people? What
factors cause us to be attracted to some people and to dislike others? How do these
processes of social perception and attraction influence our decisions in selecting a
mate or forming a close friendship with someone? These types of questions have long
been of particular interest to social psychologists. In the following sections, I will
explore some of the ways humor may play an important role in all these processes.
Social Perception
When we meet other people for the first time, we tend to quickly form
impressions and make judgments about their personality characteristics such as their
friendliness, trustworthiness, motives, and so on (E. E. Jones, 1990). Indeed, the
ability to form relatively accurate impressions of others rapidly and efficiently may
have been important for survival in our evolutionary history. One source of infor-
mation that contributes to our initial impressions of others is the way they express
humor. As we have seen, humor is a form of interpersonal communication, and a
good sense of humor is therefore an important social skill that we typically admire in
others.
Although a sense of humor is generally viewed as a positive characteristic in other
people, the way another person's humor influences our impressions may depend in
part on our previous expectations about that person. In an early study of the role of
humor in person perception, undergraduate participants were asked to evaluate a pro-
fessor after watching a videotaped lecture (Mettee, Hrelec, and Wilkens, 197 1). Before
the lecture, the participants were given a summary of the professor's personality char-
acteristics; half of the subjects were told that he was an aloof, humorless person, and
half were told that he was somewhat "clownish" and given to being indiscreet in his
use of humor. The participants all watched videotapes of the same professor giving
THE SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY OF HUMOR
the same lecture, except that for some subjects he told a joke at one point in the
lecture, whereas for others he did not. Analyses of the participants' ratings indicated
that, in the joke condition, those who had been led to expect an aloof and humorless
lecturer found the joke funnier and rated the lecturer as more competent, as com-
pared to those who were told that he was "clownish" and given to silly humor.
However, regardless of whether they had been told he was aloof or clownish, subjects
rated the lecturer as more likable when he told a joke than when he did not.
Our perceptions of other people may also be influenced by the type of humor
they use, the responses of others to their humor, and the social context in which they
express it. Peter Derks and Jack Berkowitz (1989) randomly assigned almost 800 male
and female undergraduates to various conditions in which they read alternate versions
of a story in which a male (or female) tells a cute (or dirty) joke to a group of friends
(or strangers) at a party (or at work), and everyone (or no one) laughs. The partici-
pants were then asked to rate their impressions of the joke-teller on a number of
dimensions. The joke-teller who told a "dirty," as compared to a "cute" joke, was rated
as significantly less sincere, less friendly, less intelligent, more thoughtless, and more
obnoxious. Dirty jokes were viewed particularly negatively if they were told to
strangers rather than friends, and by males rather than by females. Thus, telling
"dirty" jokes does not appear to be a very good way of making a positive first impres-
sion on others.
Regardless of which type of joke was told, if the audience laughed at it, the joke-
teller was perceived as more attractive, but also as less sincere, than if the audience
did not laugh. Males found joke-tellers to be particularly attractive if they made people
laugh at work, whereas females rated most attractive those who made people laugh at
a party. Overall, those who told jokes at work were rated as more friendly than were
those who told jokes at a party. This latter finding may be explained by attribution
theory (H. H. Kelley, 1972), which suggests that we attribute the causes of behavior
to internal personality traits when it occurs in situations where it is not normally
expected, and to external causes when it occurs in situations where the behavior is
more expected. Since people typically tell jokes at parties more frequently than at
work, telling a joke at work is more likely to elicit attributions that the behavior is
due to internal traits such as friendliness.
A later study by Derks and his colleagues replicated and extended these findings
(Derks, Kalland, and Etgen, 1995). One finding in the later study was that the failure
of an audience to laugh at a joke led to perceptions of the joke-teller as being more
aggressive and less affiliative as compared to situations where the audience laughed at
the joke. Overall, then, the effect of humor on impression formation depends on a
variety of factors, including the type of humor, the social context, and the degree to
which other people find the person amusing.
Interpersonal Attraction
In general, we tend to be attracted to people who display a sense of humor. In
the cost-benefit analyses underlying interpersonal attraction (K. S. Cook and Rice,
HUMOR, SOCIAL PERCEPTION, AND INTERPERSONAL ATTRACTION
2003), a sense of humor in another person increases the perceived benefits of a rela-
tionship (the pleasant feelings associated with laughter) and decreases the perceived
costs (there is less likelihood that the person will become easily offended or burden
us with negative emotional reactions). An experiment by Barbara Fraley and Arthur
Aron (2004) examined the degree to which a shared humorous experience during a
first encounter between strangers leads to greater feelings of closeness. In this study,
same-sex stranger pairs participated together in a series of tasks that were designed
either to generate a great deal of humor or to be enjoyable but not humorous. After
completing these tasks, they were each asked to rate their perceptions of their partner
and their feelings on a number of scales, including how close they felt to the other
person.
The participants in the humorous task condition laughed much more frequently
and rated the activity as being significantly more humorous than did those in the non-
humorous condition, indicating that the manipulation of humor was successful. At the
same time, the two conditions were rated as being equally enjoyable. As predicted,
the participants in the humorous condition reported feeling much closer and more
attracted to each other afterwards, as compared to those in the nonhumorous condi-
tion. Further analyses revealed that this effect was due to differences in the perceived
funniness and not merely the enjoyableness of the conditions.
The authors also tested several hypotheses concerning possible mediators and
moderators of the observed effects of shared humor. They found that the effect of
humor on perceived closeness was mediated in part by perceptions of "self-expansion"
(feeling that one has gained a new perspective on things and a greater sense of
awareness as a result of the interaction), as well as by distraction from the initial
discomfort associated with interacting with a stranger, but not by perceptions of self-
disclosure or greater acceptance by the partner. Furthermore, the effect of humor on
closeness was stronger for participants with a greater sense of humor and for those
with a more anxious attachment style. In summary, sharing humor in an initial
encounter between strangers appears to enhance feelings of closeness and mutual
attraction by expanding each person's sense of self and by reducing their feelings of
discomfort and anxiety, particularly among people who generally have a good
sense of humor as well as those who usually tend to feel anxious about their close
relationships.
While we tend to be attracted to people with whom we have a humorous inter-
action in our first encounter, we may be particularly attracted to those who laugh at
our jokes, since this indicates that they share our sense of humor. In an experiment
by Arnie Cann and his colleagues, participants were instructed to tell a joke to a same-
sex stranger who was actually a confederate of the experimenter (Cann, Calhoun, and
Banks, 1997). For half of the subjects, the stranger laughed at the joke, and for the
other half he or she did not. Half of the participants were also given information indi-
cating that the stranger held attitudes and beliefs about social issues that were very
similar to their own, whereas the other half were led to believe that the stranger held
dissimilar views. The participants subsequently rated their perceptions of the stranger
and their feelings of attraction to him or her.
THE SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY OF HUMOR
As predicted, the results indicated that both greater similarity in attitudes and the
stranger's laughter in response to the joke led to more positive perceptions and greater
attraction to the stranger. Interestingly, the effect of laughter on the part of the
stranger was even powerful enough to overcome the well-established negative effect
of attitude dissimilarity on attraction. A stranger with dissimilar social attitudes who
laughed in response to the participant's joke was perceived more positively than was
a stranger with similar attitudes who did not laugh. The authors suggested that laugh-
ter from the stranger indicates that this person has a sense of humor, and, moreover,
that he or she shares the subject's style of humor, both of which contribute to posi-
tive attraction. These humor perceptions seem to be even more important than the
well-established effect on attraction of sharing similar attitudes and beliefs. Viewed in
another way, these findings suggest that laughing at the funny things another person
says is a way not only of expressing feelings of attraction but also of enhancing one's
own attractiveness to the other person (Grammer, 1990).
Humor as a Desirable Trait in Friendship and Mate Selection
As noted in Chapter 1, over the past century a sense of humor has become a highly
prized personality characteristic, but it is also rather vaguely defined in most people's
minds. In much the same way as physical attractiveness is highly valued and is per-
ceived to be associated with many desirable traits (Eagly, Ashmore, Makhijani, and
Longo, 1991), we tend to hold positive stereotypes about individuals whom we per-
ceive to have a sense of humor. Studies have shown that people tend to assume that
individuals with a strong sense of humor are also characterized by a number of other
desirable traits, such as being friendly, extraverted, considerate, pleasant, interesting,
imaginative, intelligent, perceptive, and emotionally stable (Cann and Calhoun, 2001).
Due to this positive stereotype, we often use other people's sense of humor as a guide
in choosing our friends and romantic partners. Sprecher and Regan (2002) surveyed
700 men and women about their preferences for a number of attributes in either a
casual sex partner, dating partner, marriage partner, same-sex friend, or opposite-sex
friend. Across all these relationship types, a good sense of humor was one of the most
highly rated characteristics, along with warmth and openness. Similar findings have
been obtained in a number of other studies (Goodwin, 1990; Goodwin and Tang,
1991; Kenrick, Sadalla, Groth, and Trost, 1990).
Analyses of the kinds of characteristics sought in potential romantic partners in
personal ads placed in newspapers and singles magazines have found that women par-
ticularly look for a sense of humor in male partners, whereas men, although they still
place a high value on a sense of humor in a woman, rate physical attractiveness as
somewhat more important (Provine, 2000; J. E. Smith, Waldorf, and Trembath, 1990).
A similar pattern of sex differences has been found in some survey studies (e.g., Daniel,
O'Brien, McCabe, and Quinter, 1985). A meta-analysis of the research on mate selec-
tion preferences concluded that there is a significant but relatively small tendency for
women to place greater weight than men on the importance of a sense of humor in
a potential partner (Feingold, 1992).
HUMOR. SOCIAL PERCEPTION, AND INTERPERSONAL ATTRACTION 13
An experiment by Duane Lundy and his colleagues examined the effects of self-
deprecating humor and physical attractiveness on observers' desire for future inter-
action in various types of heterosexual relationships (Lundy, Tan, and Cunningham,
1998). Male and female college students were shown a photograph and a transcript
of an interview with a person of the opposite sex (the target person). The participants
were randomly assigned to conditions in which the photograph depicted either an
attractive or unattractive person, and the transcript either did or did not contain a
self-deprecating humorous comment supposedly made by the target. The participants
were asked to rate the target in terms of mate qualities by indicating the degree to
which they would be interested in several types of relationships with him or her,
including dating, sexual intercourse, long-term relationship, marriage, and marriage
with children.
As in previous research, men rated the more physically attractive female target as
a more desirable partner for almost all types of relationships. Men's ratings of desir-
ability were not affected by the presence or absence of humor in the transcript. In
contrast, for women, physical attractiveness of the male target did not directly influ-
ence their ratings of desirability. Instead, for female participants, there was an inter-
action between the physical attractiveness of the target and whether or not he
expressed humor. In particular, humor increased the perceived desirability if the target
was physically attractive, but it had no effect if he was unattractive. This pattern held
for ratings of desirability for both short- and long-term relationships. These results
suggest that self-deprecating humor may increase romantic attraction of women
toward men, but only when other variables (such as physical attractiveness) are favor-
able. Further analyses of the rating data indicated that women viewed the humorous,
physically attractive male as being more caring than the nonhumorous, physically
attractive male.
Contrary to previous research evidence that humor is perceived as an indicator
of intelligence (Cann and Calhoun, 2001), both male and female participants tended
to view the humorous target as being slightly less intelligent than the nonhumorous
one. However, the results of this study may have been influenced by the self-
deprecating nature of the humor displayed by the target and not to humor in general.
In particular, the humor in this experiment may not have been sufficient or of the
right type to evoke perceptions that the target had a "sense of humor," along with all
the positive qualities that are associated with this stereotype. Additional research is
needed to determine whether these findings can be replicated using different degrees
or types of humor. Some other research suggests that, for women, having a good
sense of humor (as well as being emotionally stable) can make up for being relatively
less physically attractive in determining the degree to which they are seen by males
as attractive romantic partners (Feingold, 1981). I will review some additional
research along these lines in my discussion of evolutionary theories of humor in
Chapter 6.
Overall, the research on humor, social perception, and attraction indicates that
we tend to have positive attitudes toward people who demonstrate a sense of humor.
People with a sense of humor are generally assumed also to have a number of other
16 5 • THE SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY OF HUMOR
positive characteristics, and this trait is highly desirable in the selection of a friend or
romantic partner. As we saw earlier, research indicates that the sound of laughter in
others induces positive feelings in the listener (Bachorowski and Owren, 2001). The
positive emotion elicited by shared laughter with someone who has a sense of humor
may serve to reinforce mutual feelings of attraction, strengthening positive attitudes,
instilling a sense of trust and loyalty, and promoting the development of close rela-
tionships (Smoski and Bachorowski, 2003).
HUMOR AND PERSUASION
Is a humorous message more persuasive than a serious one? The widespread use
of humor in television and radio advertisements suggests that advertisers view humor
as a useful tool in persuading people to buy their products. Also, politicians frequently
sprinkle humor in their campaign speeches, presumably because they believe this will
help in persuading people to vote for them. Surprisingly, however, there is little
research evidence that humorous messages are more persuasive, overall, than are non-
humorous ones. A review of the relevant research (Weinberger and Gulas, 1992)
found five studies on humor in advertising that indicated a positive effect on persua-
sion, eight studies that indicated only mixed or no effect, and one that even found
humorous advertisements to be less persuasive than serious ones.
In research on humor and persuasion outside of advertising (e.g., persuasive
speeches or essays), none of the studies demonstrated an overall superiority of humor-
ous over nonhumorous messages, seven studies found neutral or mixed results, and
one study found a negative effect of humor on persuasiveness (Weinberger and Gulas,
1992). Thus, simply making a message humorous does not necessarily make it more
persuasive. This conclusion is perhaps less surprising than it may initially seem: if
humorous messages were always more persuasive, advertisers and politicians would
likely have figured that out by now, and we would see nothing but humorous adver-
tisements on television and politicians constantly cracking jokes throughout their
campaign speeches!
The wide variation in research findings suggests that the role of humor in per-
suasion is more complex, with certain types of humor contributing to persuasiveness
in some circumstances but not in others. For example, one study found that humor-
ous advertisements were more effective than nonhumorous ones with viewers who
already had a positive attitude toward the product, whereas humor was less effective
with those who had pre-existing negative brand attitudes (Chattopadhyay and Basu,
1990). Another study found that the addition of humor to a low-intensity, soft-
sell advertising approach increased the level of persuasion, whereas the addition of
humor to a hard-sell approach actually decreased persuasiveness (Markiewicz, 1974).
Weinberger and Gulas (1992) suggested that the effectiveness of humor in advertis-
ing depends on the objectives one seeks to achieve, the target audience, the product
being advertised, and the type of humor used.
HUMOR AND PERSUASION 13
The complex role of humor in persuasion may be better understood if we
consider the factors that have been found to be relevant to persuasion in general.
Contemporary research suggests that the persuasiveness of a message depends not
only on the message itself but also on characteristics of the audience, such as atten-
tion, distraction, involvement, motivation, self-esteem, and intelligence. According to
the Elaboration Likelihood Model developed by Richard Petty and John Cacioppo
(1986), persuasion can be achieved by means of two potential routes: a central pro-
cessing route and a peripheral processing route. The central route, which involves
active elaboration of the message by the listener, occurs when the listener finds the
message personally relevant and has pre-existing ideas and beliefs about the issue. In
this route, listeners will become convinced of an argument if they find it logically
compelling. In contrast, the peripheral route involves less well-thought-out responses
based on "heuristic" cues such as moods and emotions, familiar phrases, or the attrib-
utes of the message source (e.g., level of expertise, likeability, or perceived lack of
self-interested motives). This route occurs when the listener is less highly invested
or motivated, is not able to understand the message, or does not like to deal with
complex information, and it generally leads to less stable changes in attitudes and
behavior.
Research suggests that the effects of humor on persuasion may have more to do
with the peripheral than the central processing route. In particular, humor seems to
be more effective in influencing emotional variables, such as liking and positive mood,
than cognitive ones, such as comprehension of the message (Calvin P. Duncan and
Nelson, 1985). There is little evidence that humor increases the perceived credibility
of the source of a message, or that it improves comprehension of the message (Wein-
berger and Gulas, 1992). However, there is considerable evidence that humor has
emotional effects on the audience, tending to put them into a more positive mood
(C. C. Moran, 1996). Studies also indicate that humor enhances the listener's liking
of the source and the product being advertised (Weinberger and Gulas, 1992). Humor
also has an attention-grabbing effect, causing people to attend to the humorous
aspects of the message (Madden and Weinberger, 1982), and distracting them from
weaknesses in the logical argument (J. A. Jones, 2005). Taken together, these findings
suggest that humor has more of an emotional than a cognitive effect, and that it may
play a greater role in the peripheral processing route than in the central processing
route to persuasion.
Jim Lyttle (2001) suggested that humor may influence the peripheral processing
route in several ways. First, by creating a positive mood in the audience, it might make
them less likely to disagree with a persuasive message. Second, by increasing liking
for the source, humor might implicitly convey a sense of shared values and thereby
make the source appear more credible. Third, by distracting the attention of the audi-
ence, humor might prevent them from constructing counter-arguments against the
message. Finally, self-disparaging or self-effacing humor might convey the impression
that the source has less personal investment in the outcome and this might increase
audience perceptions of trustworthiness of the source.
8 5 • THE SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY OF HUMOR
An experiment by Diane Mackie and Leila Worth (1989) examined the role of
humor-induced positive mood on the persuasiveness of a message. Participants were
either put in a good mood by having them watch a humorous videotape (a comedy
segment from Saturday Night Live) or they were put in a neutral mood by having them
watch a documentary film about wine. They were then exposed to a persuasive
message about gun control (advocating a position contrary to their original views) that
contained either strong or weak arguments, and that was delivered by either an expert
or a nonexpert source. The participants' subsequent ratings of their attitudes toward
gun control revealed that those who had been exposed to the humorous videotape
were equally likely to change their attitudes following the weak and strong arguments,
but were more strongly influenced by the expert source than by the nonexpert source.
This pattern of results indicates that they were engaging in peripheral rather than
central processing of the information, relying on heuristic cues instead of the strength
of the argument to make a decision. In contrast, those who had watched the nonhu-
morous videotape were more strongly influenced by the strong than the weak argu-
ments, whereas they were equally persuaded by the expert and nonexpert sources.
Thus, they were engaging in central processing, focusing on the strength of the argu-
ments rather than heuristic cues such as the credibility of the source.
Similar findings were obtained in another experiment in which positive moods
were induced in participants by having them win a small prize in a lottery, indicating
that the pattern of the humor-related persuasion effects was due to the induction of
positive emotion rather than the more cognitive aspects of humor. Thus, humor may
influence the persuasiveness of a message by inducing positive moods in listeners,
causing them to attend to peripheral, heuristic cues rather than to the strength of the
argument via central processing (see also Wegener, Petty, and Smith, 1995, regard-
ing the complicated relationship between positive moods and information process-
ing). These findings may also explain the broad appeal of some politicians who
sprinkle their speeches with humor, inducing voters to respond to peripheral cues
instead of engaging in more critical thinking about their policies.
Because it involves the peripheral processing route, humor may be particularly
effective as a method of persuasion with people who are motivated to avoid thinking
too much about an issue. This hypothesis was tested in two studies that examined the
effects of a humorous persuasive message concerning potentially threatening topics,
specifically the use of sunscreen to prevent skin cancer and the use of condoms to
prevent sexually transmitted diseases (Conway and Dube, 2002). The authors hypoth-
esized that a humorous message would be more effective than a nonhumorous message
for high-masculinity individuals, but not for low-masculinity people. Masculinity (a
characteristic that can apply to both men and women) consists of an assertive, instru-
mental orientation characterized by being independent, forceful, and dominant. Pre-
vious research has shown that high-masculinity people are particularly averse to
feelings of distress, and they therefore avoid thinking about threatening topics by
engaging in distraction, denial, or a focus on the positive.
To test these hypotheses, male and female participants who were either high or
low in masculinity were presented with either a humorous or a nonhumorous message,
HUMOR, ATTITUDES, AND PREJUDICE
both of which contained an equal amount of information about the topic. The par-
ticipants were then asked to indicate how likely they would be to engage in the pre-
ventive behaviors in the future (sunscreen use in the first study and condom use in
the second). As predicted, high-masculinity participants (both male and female) were
more strongly persuaded by the humorous message than by the nonhumorous
message, whereas low-masculinity subjects were equally persuaded by both messages.
The authors suggested that the humorous appeals were more effective for high-
masculinity subjects in promoting preventive behaviors because the humor matched
the avoidant manner in which these individuals typically respond to a threatening
topic, allowing them to engage in peripheral (heuristic) rather than central
(elaborative) processing of the persuasive message.
The research discussed so far focused on the effectiveness of humor in persuasive
messages such as advertisements. An experiment by Karen O'Quin and Joel Aronoff
(1981) examined whether humor is effective in an interpersonal bargaining situation.
The participants in this study were instructed to act as buyers of a painting, negoti-
ating a sale price with another person who played the part of the seller (and who was
actually a confederate of the experimenter). At one point during the negotiation, the
confederate made either a nonhumorous or a humorous offer to the subject ("Well,
my final offer is $100, and I'll throw in my pet frog"). The results showed that the
participants who received the humorous offer during the course of negotiations agreed
to pay a higher final price for the painting, on average, than did those who received
the nonhumorous offer. Thus, the use of humor by the seller appears to provide an
advantage in sales negotiations. Interestingly, further analyses indicated that this effect
was not simply due to the humor causing the participants to like the seller more.
Instead, the authors proposed an explanation based on the face-saving effects of humor
discussed earlier. In particular, they suggested that humor may convey the message
that the seller does not take the situation very seriously, thereby allowing the buyer
to save face when agreeing to pay a higher price. This hypothesis should be exam-
ined further in future research.
In summary, there does not appear to be a simple relationship between humor
and persuasion. The role of humor in persuasion depends on the kind of processing
involved (peripheral or central), and characteristics of the audience, the topic, and the
source of the message.
HUMOR, ATTITUDES, AND PREJUDICE
Many jokes make use of a stereotype about a particular group of people to enable
the listener to resolve an incongruity and "get" the joke. Consider the following old
English riddle (from Raskin, 1985, p. 189):
How do you make a Scotsman mute and deaf?
By asking him to contribute to a charity.
0 5 • THE SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY OF HUMOR
To resolve the puzzle of why someone would suddenly become mute and deaf
when asked to contribute money to a charity, one needs to be aware of the English
stereotype of Scottish people as being excessively stingy. The presence of such stereo-
types in many jokes raises the question of whether jokes making fun of women, people
of disadvantaged ethnic or racial groups, homosexuals, and so on, reinforce negative
stereotypes and contribute to prejudice and discrimination. As noted in Chapter 3,
theorists holding to the salience hypothesis have argued that people do not need to
agree with such stereotypes in order to enjoy these types of disparaging jokes, and
that they are therefore not inherently aggressive or offensive (Attardo and Raskin,
1991; Goldstein et al., 1972).
We saw earlier in this chapter that humor is often used to communicate contra-
dictory and ambiguous messages. When people make disparaging statements about
others in a humorous way, they can leave open the question of whether they "really
mean it" or are "just joking," and whether or not the target of the humorous dispar-
agement has reason to take offense. This ambiguity in the meaning of humor is played
out in the "political correctness" debate, which has generated a great deal of contro-
versy in recent years. When historically disadvantaged groups, such as minorities and
women, began to decry the use of disparaging humor in the workplace and in public
discourse generally, others reacted against what they perceived to be an unwarranted
restriction of their right to free speech, suggesting that such humor was all in fun and
should not be taken so seriously (Saper, 1995).
Much like the general public, humor scholars have also been divided over this
issue, as demonstrated by an extended debate that was conducted via email among 19
humor researchers and was subsequently published in Humor: International Journal of
Humor Research (Lewis, 1997). Some scholars, such as Paul Lewis, argued that degrad-
ing forms of sexist and racist humor can serve to legitimize and perpetuate negative
stereotypes and contribute to a culture of prejudice. Others, like Arthur Asa Berger,
countered that humor is inherently iconoclastic, is valuable for rebelling against
norms, rules, and restrictions of all kinds, and should not be restricted. Still others,
such as John Morreall, suggested that the offensiveness of a joke depends not so much
on its content but the manner and context in which it is told. Such differences of
opinion among humor scholars are also seen in two sociological studies analyzing
jokes making fun of "Jewish American princesses" (JAPs), which arrived at radically
different conclusions. Gary Spencer (1989) concluded that these jokes are essentially
anti-Semitic and contribute to prejudice and negative stereotypes of Jews, whereas
Christie Davies (1990b) argued that they are not based on anti-Semitism at all, but
actually affirm the positive qualities of Jewish culture.
We saw in Chapter 2 that Freud (1960 [1905]) viewed jokes as a socially accept-
able means of expressing aggressive and hostile impulses. In addition, Zillmann and
Cantor's (1976) dispositional theory of humor suggested that people enjoy jokes that
disparage a particular group of people when they have negative attitudes toward that
group and/or positive attitudes toward the source of the disparagement. A number of
studies have found evidence to support this theory (Cantor, 1976; La Fave, Haddad,
and Marshall, 1974; Wicker, Barren, and Willis, 1980). More recently, a study by
HUMOR, ATTITUDES, AND PREJUDICE 141
Brigitte Bill and Peter Naus (1992) showed that people who perceive incidents involv-
ing sexist attitudes and behaviors to be more humorous also tend to view them as less
sexist and more socially acceptable. Several other studies have revealed that individ-
uals who rate sexist and female-disparaging humor as more ninny and enjoyable are
also more likely to endorse sexist attitudes and rape-related beliefs and have less
liberal, pro-feminist attitudes (Greenwood and Isbell, 2002; Henkin and Fish, 1986;
Moore, Griffiths, and Payne, 1987; Ryan and Kanjorski, 1998).
Caroline Thomas and Victoria Esses (2004), at the University of Western
Ontario, found that men with higher scores on a measure of hostile sexism, as com-
pared to those with lower scores, rated female-disparaging (but not male-disparaging)
jokes as funnier and less offensive, and were more likely to indicate that they would
repeat these sexist jokes to others. Further analyses revealed that these differences
were not merely due to stereotypical attitudes or prejudice toward women, but to
hostile attitudes. Thus, there is considerable evidence that disparagement humor, such
as that found in sexist and racist jokes, is enjoyed partly because it enables people to
express negative sentiments and attitudes toward the target groups in a manner that
is perceived to be socially acceptable.
In addition to research indicating that enjoyment of disparagement humor
reveals negative attitudes toward the target of the humor, researchers have recently
begun to examine the question of whether exposure to these types of humor can actu-
ally have an influence on listeners' attitudes and stereotypes. James Olson and col-
leagues (1999), at the University of Western Ontario, conducted three experiments
testing whether exposure to disparaging humor would produce more extreme or
more accessible stereotypes and attitudes concerning the disparaged group. Partici-
pants in the experimental conditions were exposed to disparaging humor about
men (in two studies) or lawyers (in the third study), while those in the control groups
were exposed to nondisparaging humor, nonhumorous disparaging information, or
nothing at all. Dependent measures included ratings of the target group on stereo-
typic attributes, attitudes toward the target group, and latencies of stereotypic and
attitudinal judgments about the target group (to assess activation of prejudice
schemas).
Across the three experiments, a total of 83 analyses yielded only one significant
difference in the predicted direction. In sum, exposure to disparaging humor had no
demonstrable effects on stereotype or attitude extremity or accessibility. Thus, simply
hearing someone tell jokes that disparage a particular target group does not seem to
cause the listener to have more negative attitudes toward that group. A limitation of
these studies, however, is that the disparaged groups in these studies (men and lawyers)
are relatively advantaged in the culture; different results might have been found if the
jokes had targeted more disadvantaged groups. The authors had chosen these targets
rather than jokes disparaging women or racial minorities because of ethical concerns.
However, given their null results, it seems important for future research to replicate
these findings using disparagement humor targeting truly disadvantaged groups. If
the same results are found, this would provide more conclusive evidence that this type
of humor does not influence the attitudes of the listeners.
\"L 5 • THE SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY OF HUMOR
Although these studies found little evidence that listening to disparagement
humor creates more negative stereotypes and attitudes in the audience, other studies
by the same research group have shown that telling such jokes can affect joke-tellers'
stereotypes about the target group. Hobden and Olson (1994) had participants tell
disparaging jokes that played upon the stereotype that lawyers are greedy. Partici-
pants' attitudes toward lawyers were then measured. The results indicated that freely
reciting the disparaging humor about lawyers caused participants to indicate more
negative attitudes toward lawyers afterwards.
In another experiment, Maio, Olson, and Bush (1997) manipulated whether par-
ticipants recited jokes that disparaged Newfoundlanders, who are a relatively disad-
vantaged group in Canada, or nondisparaging jokes. In a supposedly unrelated study,
the participants were then asked to complete a measure of their stereotypes and atti-
tudes toward Newfoundlanders. The results indicated that those who recited dis-
paraging humor subsequently reported more negative stereotypes (e.g., perceptions
of Newfoundlanders as having low intelligence) than did those who recited
nondisparaging humor. However, the participants' evaluative attitudes toward
Newfoundlanders (e.g., ratings of good/bad, likable/unlikable) were not affected by
the manipulation.
Taken together, the results of these experiments provide some evidence that
telling disparaging jokes (as opposed to merely listening to them) can reinforce, and
perhaps even exacerbate, negative stereotypes about the target group. It is not clear,
however, whether these results were due to the participants' attitudes or stereotypes
becoming more negative as a result of reciting the jokes, or whether the jokes simply
made pre-existing beliefs more salient and therefore more accessible from memory.
Another possible explanation is that the instructions to tell such jokes may have caused
participants to perceive that it was more acceptable to express their pre-existing neg-
ative attitudes or stereotypes in this situation, whereas those in the control groups
suppressed any such attitudes in their responses. Future research is needed to explore
these alternative explanations of the results.
Even if exposure to disparaging humor does not make the listeners' attitudes
more negative (as suggested by the study of J. M. Olson et al., 1999), it may make
prejudiced attitudes seem more socially acceptable and thereby increase tolerance
for discrimination, particularly in people who already have negative attitudes toward
the target group. Thomas Ford (2000) conducted three experiments to investigate
these hypotheses. In the first experiment, participants were exposed either to sexist
jokes, neutral jokes, or nonhumorous sexist communications, and were then asked to
rate the acceptability of a sexist event (a vignette describing a situation in which a
young woman was treated in a patronizing manner at work by her male supervisor).
The results showed that, after exposure to sexist jokes, those participants (both male
and female) who had previously been identified in a questionnaire as being high in
hostile sexism showed greater tolerance for the sexist event, in comparison to those
exposed to neutral jokes or nonhumorous sexist communications. This effect was
not found among participants who were low in hostile sexism. Thus, exposure to
sexist attitudes communicated in a humorous (but not a serious) manner seems to
HUMOR AND INTIMATE RELATIONSHIPS 14
cause people with pre-existing sexist attitudes to become more tolerant of sex
discrimination.
These findings were replicated in two further experiments, which also showed
that these effects of sexist humor on participants high in hostile sexism were nullified
when sexist jokes were interpreted in a serious, critical manner, as a result of either
explicit instructions or contextual cues such as information about the group mem-
bership of the joke-teller. These findings suggest that it is the activation of a
noncritical mindset (which is presumably a natural by-product of humorous commu-
nication) that makes it possible for sexist humor to increase tolerance of sex discrim-
ination. This would explain why nonhumorous, serious sexist communications did not
have the same effect. A follow-up experiment indicated that exposure to sexist humor
causes people who are high in hostile sexism to perceive the social norm as being more
tolerant of sexism, and they therefore feel less guilty about behaving in a sexist manner
themselves (T. E. Ford, Wentzel, and Lorion, 2001).
In summary, the existing research indicates that simply being exposed to sexist or
other forms of disparaging humor is not likely to change people's attitudes, stereo-
types, or prejudices (which tend to be quite stable schemas). However, telling these
kinds of jokes may create more negative stereotypes in the joke-teller, and hearing
them can cause negative stereotypes to become more salient in the listener. In addi-
tion, the sexist or racist attitudes underlying disparaging jokes may be interpreted less
critically than when these attitudes are expressed in a serious manner, and this can
create a social climate in which individuals who already have these sorts of attitudes
perceive sexual or racial discrimination to be more socially acceptable, causing them
to be more tolerant of such behavior (T. E. Ford and Ferguson, 2004). This does not
mean that everyone who enjoys disparagement humor necessarily has sexist, racist, or
homophobic attitudes (Attardo and Raskin, 1991); however, the research indicates that
there is a strong tendency for the two to go together. Furthermore, although simply
telling such jokes is not likely to change other people's feelings about the targets of
the jokes, for those who do have such attitudes this kind of humor can implicitly com-
municate a level of social tolerance for prejudice that may help to perpetuate dis-
crimination and social inequities.
HUMOR AND INTIMATE RELATIONSHIPS
We saw earlier that a sense of humor is viewed by most people as a very desir-
able characteristic in a friend or romantic partner. Most of us assume that a person
with a greater sense of humor will be someone with whom we can have a more
satisfying relationship compared to someone with less humor. The humorous person
is seen as likely to be enjoyable to be with, cheering us up when we are under stress,
and refraining from becoming ill-humored and burdening us unduly when he or
she is having problems. Are these stereotypes accurate, however? Is there evidence
that humor actually contributes to better relationships and greater relationship
satisfaction?
THE SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY OF HUMOR
A common view is that couples who share similar preferences in humor styles will
be more satisfied with their relationship. A study of undergraduate dating couples
found evidence in support of this hypothesis (Murstein and Brust, 1985), but a more
recent investigation of married couples did not (Priest and Thein, 2003). Although
spouses in the latter study generally tended to have similar styles of humor, greater
similarity was not related to greater marital satisfaction. Thus, the current evidence
is unclear as to whether a tendency to share similar humor preferences is correlated
with relationship satisfaction.
On the other hand, there is consistent evidence from studies of dating and married
couples that relationship satisfaction is correlated with positive appraisals of a partner's
sense of humor. That is, the more people are satisfied with their relationship, the more
they report that their partner has a good sense of humor, regardless of whether they
like the same types of jokes (Rust and Goldstein, 1989; Ziv and Gadish, 1989).
Research also indicates that people who are happily married often attribute their
marital satisfaction in part to the humor they share with their spouse (Ziv, 1988a).
When men and women who had been married for over 50 years were asked about the
reasons for the stability and longevity of their marriages, "laughing together fre-
quently" was close to the top of the list (Lauer, Lauer, and Kerr, 1990). However, it
is important to note that such correlational findings do not demonstrate that humor
has a causal effect on marital satisfaction. They may simply indicate that people who
are happy with their marriage (for whatever reason) tend to appreciate many things
about their spouses, including their sense of humor.
For several decades, psychologist John Gottman and his colleagues have been
studying marital satisfaction and factors predicting marital longevity over time
(Gottman, 1994). Their main research method involves videotaping married couples
engaging in discussions about problem areas in their marriage, such as differences of
opinion about dealing with finances or disciplining the children. Although these dis-
cussions take place in a research laboratory, they often become quite emotionally
intense. Indeed, the couples apparently behave in these laboratory discussions in much
the same way they normally interact when discussing problems in their daily lives.
The videotapes are then analyzed to determine the degree to which various verbal
and nonverbal expressions of emotion, conflict-resolution styles, and so on, are pre-
dictive of marital satisfaction and stability in the couples, both concurrently and
prospectively over a period of years (Gottman, 1993).
One variable that these researchers have examined is the degree to which part-
ners use benign (nonsarcastic) humor during these discussions. Overall, the studies
indicate that individuals who are more satisfied with their marriage, as compared to
those who are unhappily married, show higher levels of humor and laughter and more
reciprocated laughter during the problem discussions (Carstensen, Gottman, and
Levenson, 1995; Gottman, 1994). Thus, greater use of humor while discussing prob-
lems is indicative of greater marital harmony. In these concurrent analyses, however,
the direction of causality is still not clear: humor use in problem discussions may be
a result, rather than a cause, of current marital satisfaction.
HUMOR AND INTIMATE RELATIONSHIPS 14!
A more convincing test of the causal role of humor is provided by longitudinal
research that examines whether greater expression of humor at one point in time pre-
dicts long-term marital stability several years later, after controlling for the level of
marital satisfaction at time one. In this type of research, though, the findings have
been less clear-cut. Gottman and his colleagues have consistently found that more fre-
quent expression of positive emotions (such as joy and affection) during the problem
discussions, as compared to negative emotions (such as anger and contempt), is
strongly related to long-term marital stability. However, the specific contribution of
humor to this prediction has been inconsistent (Gottman, 1994). For example,
Gottman and Levenson (1999) were able to predict with 93 percent accuracy the like-
lihood of marital stability versus divorce over a four-year period on the basis of the
amount of affection, anger, disgust, and sadness displayed by spouses during 15-
minute discussions in the laboratory. However, the amount of humor observed in the
discussions did not significantly differentiate between those who remained together
and those who were divorced or separated four years later.
Other studies using this methodology suggest that the effects of humor on marital
stability may depend on several additional factors, and may differ for men and women.
For example, a study of newly married couples by Cohan and Bradbury (1997), using
Gottman's methodology, found that when humor expression by husbands during a
problem discussion was associated with high levels of major stressful events in the
couple's life, the couples were more likely to be separated or divorced 18 months later.
The authors suggested that husbands' use of humor during times of stress may be a
way for them to temporarily deflect problems and avoid the anxiety associated with
talking about them, but without actively confronting and resolving the problems.
Hence, humor expressed by the husband in the context of major life stress might be
associated with less distress in the short term but not with longer-term marital
stability.
On the other hand, another study of newlywed couples by Gottman and his col-
leagues found that more humor expression by wives during a problem discussion was
predictive of greater marital stability over six years, but only when the wives' humor
led to a reduction in the husbands' heart rate during the conversation (Gottman,
Coan, Carrere, and Swanson, 1998). Since men have generally been found to become
more emotionally aroused and agitated than their wives during discussions of marital
problems, this finding suggests that humor may be beneficial to marriage when it is
used by wives in ways that are emotionally calming to their partners. Thus, while hus-
bands' use of humor during times of stress can sometimes be a way of avoiding dealing
with problems, wives' use of humor can be a way of helping to calm their spouse emo-
tionally while encouraging him to continue dealing with the problems. In turn, these
two different uses of humor by husbands and wives can have different effects on the
long-term stability of the marriage.
The evidence discussed so far indicates that the amount of humor communicated
by spouses to each other relates to their current level of marital satisfaction, but is not
always predictive of the long-term stability of their marriage. Some recent research
THE SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY OF HUMOR
on younger dating couples suggests that a sense of humor may even be detrimental to
relationship longevity, at least in this early stage of heterosexual relationships. As part
of her doctoral research, one of my students, Patricia Doris (2004), investigated humor
in university students who were in dating relationships. She found that, for both males
and females, those who had higher scores on a measure of affiliative humor were
significantly more likely to experience a breakup in their dating relationship within
five months, especially if the other partner expressed some dissatisfaction with the
relationship at time one. Similarly, Keltner and colleagues (1998) found that dating
partners who engaged in more prosocial, friendly teasing when instructed to tease one
another, as compared to those who used more aggressive teasing, were more likely to
break up within several months.
A possible explanation of these surprising findings is that, because people with a
good sense of humor are seen by others as being especially attractive, they are more
likely to be able to find another relationship quite easily if things go badly in their
current one. Consequently, they may be quicker to leave a dating relationship rather
than staying in it and attempting to resolve any problems that may arise. Thus, iron-
ically, a characteristic that makes individuals appear to others to be more desirable as
a dating partner may actually tend to cause their relationships to be less stable over
time. In a similar vein, a study of "fatal attractions" in dating relationships found
that, while a sense of humor may be a characteristic that initially makes a person
attractive as a potential dating partner, this same characteristic can later become an
irritant that causes dissatisfaction in the partner, leading to a breakup of the relation-
ship (Felmlee, 1995). This was exemplified by one female participant who reported
that she "was attracted to her partner because he was 'funny and fan,' but later dis-
liked his 'constant silliness' and the fact that he 'never seemed to take the relation-
ship seriously'" (Felmlee, 1995, p. 303). Further research is needed to determine
whether these counterintuitive findings of greater relationship instability in dating
partners with a higher sense of humor are also found in more committed relation-
ships such as marriage.
In summary, research on humor in relationships indicates that, although a sense
of humor is perceived to be a very desirable characteristic in a romantic partner, it
does not necessarily increase the likelihood that the relationship will be more satisfy-
ing and stable over time. The concept of sense of humor has become associated in
popular views with a number of positive connotations and assumptions that are not
necessarily accurate. As we have seen, humor can be used for a range of social pur-
poses, some of which can contribute to cohesiveness and enjoyment, whereas others
are more aggressive and manipulative. The degree to which humor is beneficial
to a relationship therefore depends on the ways it is used in interactions between
partners.
In recent years, researchers in this area have increasingly emphasized the impor-
tance of distinguishing between potentially beneficial and detrimental uses of humor
in investigating its role in relationships, rather than viewing it as a unitary and purely
positive construct. For example, the Relational Humor Inventory (de Koning and
Weiss, 2002), a recently developed measure for studying humor in relationships, con-
HUMORANDGENDER 14
tains separate scales for positive, negative, and instrumental uses of humor by each
partner (see also R. A. Martin et al., 2003). In Chapter 9, 1 will discuss research using
these sorts of measures to examine positive and negative effects of humor in dating
relationships and marriage, as well as in nonromantic friendships.
HUMOR AND GENDER
A number of studies were conducted over the past four decades to investigate
gender differences in various aspects of humor. Many additional studies, although not
specifically focusing on gender, reported comparisons of the responses of male and
female participants. Consequently, there is a large amount of data on gender differ-
ences in humor (see Lampert and Ervin-Tripp, 1998, for a review of this literature).
Much of the early theory and research, prior to the emergence of the women's move-
ment, suggested that, "when it comes to humor, men are more likely to joke, tease,
and kid, whereas women are more likely to act as an appreciative audience than to
produce humor of their own" (Lampert and Ervin-Tripp, 1998, p. 235). Studies of
humor appreciation generally also indicated that men were more likely than women
to enjoy humor containing aggressive and sexual themes, whereas women were more
likely to enjoy "nonsense" (i.e., nontendentious) humor (Groch, 1974; Terry and
Ertel, 1974; W. Wilson, 1975). In addition, there was some evidence that both men
and women tended to enjoy jokes making fun of women more than jokes targeting
men (Cantor, 1976; Losco and Epstein, 1975).
More recently, researchers have challenged many of the conclusions drawn from
these earlier studies, pointing out a number of biases inherent in their research
methods (e.g., Crawford, 1989). Almost all of the early research examined sex differ-
ences in appreciation of jokes and cartoons, rather than the spontaneous creation of
humor in naturalistic social contexts. For both men and women, jokes and cartoons
are a relatively minor source of humor in everyday life, compared to spontaneous,
socially situated humor (Graeven and Morris, 1975; R. A. Martin and Kuiper, 1999;
Provine, 1993). Moreover, joke-telling tends to be relatively more characteristic of
male humor, whereas women are more likely to relate humorous personal anecdotes
(Crawford and Gressley, 1991). Consequently, studies testing the enjoyment of jokes
likely do not provide a representative view of women's (or even men's) humor more
generally.
In addition, sexual and aggressive jokes are frequently disparaging of women, and
it is therefore not surprising if women enjoy them less than men do (Chapman and
Gadfield, 1976; Love and Deckers, 1989). Indeed, when researchers have used non-
sexist sexual jokes as stimuli (i.e., jokes about sex that do not disparage either women
or men), they generally have not found gender differences in enjoyment ratings
(Chapman and Gadfield, 1976; Hemmasi, Graf, and Russ, 1994; Henkin and Fish,
1986; Prerost, 1983; D. W. Wilson and Molleston, 1981). These studies indicate that
women enjoy sexual humor just as much as men do when it is not demeaning toward
women. Furthermore, whereas women's lower enjoyment ratings of sexual and hostile
THE SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY OF HUMOR
jokes were interpreted by researchers as evidence of greater sexual inhibition or con-
ventionality, little thought was given to the possibility that women may also use unin-
hibited and unconventional humor, but for social functions other than the release of
hostility or sexual tension. In sum, much of the past research examining gender dif-
ferences in humor has been characterized by gender biases in the choice of topics
examined, the types of stimuli presented to participants, the operationalization of vari-
ables, and the interpretation of findings (Crawford, 1989).
Some researchers have attempted to remedy these biases in laboratory studies
of gender differences in humor appreciation by varying the gender of the source
and target of disparagement humor or by including examples of feminist humor
(Brodzinsky, Barnet, and Aiello, 1981; Gallivan, 1992; Stillion and White, 1987).
However, since the focus in these studies continues to be on the appreciation of humor
stimuli selected by the experimenter, they still do not examine the ways men and
women actually create and use humor in their daily interactions with others. Recently,
researchers in this area, as in other social psychological research on humor, have begun
to shift their attention away from the appreciation of jokes to the use of humor in
everyday discourse. Using methods such as questionnaires, daily diaries, and conver-
sational analysis, these studies have attempted to examine gender differences in humor
more naturalistically.
For example, Mary Crawford and Diane Gressley (1991) administered a 68-item
questionnaire to men and women, asking them about their typical appreciation and
creation of humor involving a broad range of topics, styles, and types of humor.
Overall, men and women showed more similarities than differences in their responses.
No gender differences were found, for example, for creativity in humor production,
tendency to laugh at oneself, enjoyment of cartoons and comic strips in newspapers
and magazines, and enjoyment of sexual humor. However, men reported greater
enjoyment and creation of hostile humor, a greater tendency to tell canned jokes, and
greater enjoyment of slapstick comedy. On the other hand, women reported greater
use of anecdotal humor, such as recounting funny stories about things that happen to
themselves or others.
My colleague Nicholas Kuiper and I conducted a naturalistic study of laughter in
which we asked men and women to complete daily logs recording all the experiences
that caused them to laugh over a three-day period (R. A. Martin and Kuiper, 1999).
The sources of humor were grouped into four categories: media, spontaneous social
situations, canned jokes, and recall of humorous past events. Men and women did not
differ in their overall frequency of reported laughter (averaging 17.5 reported laughs
per day). However, women were significantly more likely than men to report laugh-
ing in response to humor arising spontaneously in social situations. No significant
gender differences were found on the other three categories.
Jennifer Hay (2000) analyzed the interpersonal functions of humor occurring in
1 8 tape-recorded conversations among small groups of adult friends, including all-
female, all-male, and mixed-sex groups. The conversations took place in homes of
group members, and, although the participants were aware of being recorded, they
HUMOR AND GENDER 14
were not aware that humor was to be the focus of the study. A number of different
humor functions were identified in the conversations, and these were classified into
three broad categories: (1) power-based (e.g., aggressive teasing), (2) solidarity-based
(e.g., sharing humorous memories, friendly teasing), and (3) psychological (e.g., using
humor to cope with problems). The data analyses indicated that women were much
more likely than men to use humor to create or maintain group solidarity, both in
same-sex and mixed-sex groups. This function of humor was over eight times more
frequent for women than for men. In particular, women's greater solidarity-based
humor involved humorous disclosure of personal information, which presumably
enabled the conversational partners to get to know the speaker better and communi-
cated a sense of trust.
Both friendly and aggressive forms of teasing were more likely to occur in all-
female and in all-male than in mixed-sex groups, and teasing was only slightly more
frequent in groups of men as compared to groups of women. Thus, women were
nearly as likely to tease their female friends as men were to tease their male friends.
The use of humor for coping was also more common in single-sex than in mixed-sex
groups. However, a difference was found in the way men and women tend to use
humor to cope. Men were more likely to engage in "contextual" coping (using humor
to cope with an immediate problem arising in the context of the conversation),
whereas women were more likely to engage in "noncontextual" coping (using humor
in talking about life problems outside the conversational context). Other studies of
gender differences in humor in naturalistic discourse were reported by Lampert and
Ervin-Tripp (1998) and by Robinson and Smith-Lovin (2001).
As these examples of recent research demonstrate, the general shift in humor
studies away from a focus on appreciation of jokes in the laboratory to an exploration
of the interpersonal functions of spontaneous humor in naturalistic contexts has pro-
duced changes in researchers' ideas about the relation between humor and gender.
Further research is needed to replicate the findings of these and other similar studies
and to examine their generalizability to other populations. However, the data col-
lected thus far indicate that, although women and men do not differ in their overall
tendency to create and enjoy humor, and there are many similarities in their uses of
humor, they also tend to use humor for somewhat different social purposes.
These gender differences in humorous discourse may be understood in terms of
the way gender is expressed in social interactions more generally (Crawford, 1992;
2003). According to Deborah Tannen (1986; 1990), men and women have somewhat
different conversational goals: for women, the primary goal of friendly conversation
is intimacy, whereas for men the goal is positive self-presentation. These different
goals are also reflected in the ways men and women use humor. Women more often
use humor to enhance group solidarity and intimacy through self-disclosure and mild
self-deprecation, whereas men more often use humor for the purpose of impressing
others, appearing funny, and creating a positive personal identity. Thus, humor is a
mode of communication that, along with more serious communication, is used to
achieve gender-relevant social goals.
•0 SB THE SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY OF HUMOR
CONCLUSION
In this chapter we have seen that humor may be viewed as a mode of communi-
cation that occurs in a wide range of everyday social contexts. Although it is playful
and nonserious, and is often seen as frivolous and unimportant, humor can be used
for a number of "serious" functions, extending into every aspect of social behavior.
As sociologist Linda Francis (1994) pointed out, "there is more to explain about
humor than just why it is funny. People have reasons for using humor, goals they wish
to accomplish with it" (p. 157).
According to recent theory, many of the interpersonal functions of humor derive
from its inherently ambiguous nature due to the multiple concurrent meanings that
it conveys. Because of this ambiguity, humor is a useful vehicle for communicating
certain messages and dealing with situations that would be more difficult to handle
using a more serious, unambiguous mode of communication. Importantly, a message
communicated in a humorous manner can be retracted more easily than if it were
expressed in the serious mode, allowing both the speaker and the listener to save face
if the message is not well received. These insights concerning the ambiguity and face-
saving potential of humor have been applied by theorists and researchers to account
for a wide variety of social uses of humor, including self-disclosure and social probing,
decommitment and conflict de-escalation, enforcing social norms and exerting social
control, establishing and maintaining status, enhancing group cohesion and identity,
discourse management, and social play.
The multiple interpersonal functions of humor suggest that it may be viewed as
a type of social skill or interpersonal competence. Employed in an adept manner,
humor can be a very useful tool for achieving one's interpersonal goals. This does not
mean, however, that humor is always used in prosocial ways. If an individual's goals
in a particular situation are to establish meaningful relationships, enhance intimacy,
and resolve conflicts, the sensitive use of humor may be an effective vehicle for fur-
thering these aims. However, if the goal is to gain an advantage, manipulate, domi-
nate, or belittle others, humor can be a useful skill for those purposes as well.
Because of its inherent ambiguity, humor can be employed for a variety of con-
tradictory purposes. It can be used to bring people closer together or to exclude them,
to violate social norms or to enforce them, to dominate over and manipulate people,
or to ingratiate oneself with others. Humor can also be used to reinforce stereotypes
or to shatter prejudices, to resolve conflicts in relationships or to avoid dealing with
problems, to convey feelings of affection and tolerance, or to denigrate and express
hostility. Most people likely use humor for many of these different purposes at dif-
ferent times and in different contexts. For example, when you are at work, you might
use humor to reinforce your status, whereas when you are relaxing with a group of
friends, you might use it to enhance group cohesion.
Besides being an interesting topic of study in its own right within social psy-
chology, humor also has important implications for our understanding of a number
of other topic areas that have long been of interest to social psychologists, including
person perception and attraction, persuasion, attitudes and prejudice, intimate rela-
CONCLUSION
tionships, and gender differences. By studying the role of humor in each of these areas,
we gain new insights that would not be apparent if we focused only on the serious
mode of communication.
The role of humor often turns out to be more complex than one might initially
expect. For example, although a sense of humor is generally viewed as a desirable
characteristic in a friend or romantic partner, research indicates that it can contribute
in both positive and negative ways to relationship satisfaction and stability, depend-
ing on how it is used in the relationship. Similarly, in the area of persuasion, a humor-
ous message may contribute to greater persuasiveness with certain topics and
audiences, but it can reduce persuasiveness with others.
The existing research suggests that the role of humor in many areas of social psy-
chology may be at least as important, if not more so, than some other factors that
have typically received greater research attention. For example, there is some evidence
(Cann et al., 1997; Feingold, 1981) that humor may have a stronger influence on inter-
personal attraction than do attitude similarity and physical attractiveness, both of
which have been the focus of considerably more research. The importance of humor
in the areas of prejudice and stereotypes, gender differences, and intimate relation-
ships may also be more substantial than has generally been recognized in the existing
research on these topics. Clearly, to gain a full understanding of most aspects of social
behavior, researchers need to give attention to the complex contributions of humor.
In view of the ubiquity of humor in social interaction, its obviously important
social functions, and its relevance to most of the topics of interest to social psychol-
ogy, one might expect that humor would be a fairly prominent topic in social psy-
chology as a whole. Surprisingly, however, the study of humor tends to be a relatively
minor topic that is largely ignored by the mainstream. Most of the leading social psy-
chology textbooks contain no mention of humor or its cognates. The most recent
edition of The Handbook of Social Psychology (Gilbert et al., 1998), a two-volume "bible"
for the field that spans more than 2000 pages, contains only a single brief mention of
humor. By and large, social psychologists seem to focus almost exclusively on serious
modes of communication in social interactions, while ignoring the important func-
tions of the humorous mode.
Recent insights about the interpersonal uses of humor that I have discussed in
this chapter could provide a basis for interesting new theoretical models and hypothe-
ses for future research. As these ideas become more widely known, they will hope-
fully stimulate greater interest among social psychologists in the topic of humor.
Because humor is such a broad topic, the greatest empirical advances will likely be
achieved by developing more narrowly focused theoretical models concerning specific
humor components or processes. A good example of the types of relatively focused
and heuristically useful theoretical models that are needed in this area is the face threat
analysis of teasing developed by Keltner and colleagues (2001). Numerous research
questions and hypotheses derived from this model remain to be addressed in future
research (see Keltner et al., 1998, for further research ideas).
As we will see throughout this book, recognition of the essentially social nature
of humor also has important implications for other domains of psychology. In Chapter
THE SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY OF HUMOR
4, we saw that recent research on cognitive processes involved in the comprehension
of irony and sarcasm has increasingly taken into account the influence of interper-
sonal aspects of these forms of humor. The interpersonal view of humor has also influ-
enced recent approaches to the study of individual differences in sense of humor,
which we will explore in Chapter 7. In Chapter 8, we will examine social aspects of
the development of humor and laughter in infancy and childhood. A social perspec-
tive may also be very useful for increasing our understanding of mental health aspects
of humor and its role in coping with life stress, as we will see in Chapter 9. In sum,
while the existing research on the social psychology of humor has provided a number
of interesting insights into the interpersonal functions of humor, this continues to be
a potentially very fertile field for future investigation, with important implications for
all areas of psychology.
CHAPTER
.Like all psychological phenomena, humor
is based on a large number of complex biological processes taking place in the brain
and nervous system. To experience humor, an individual must first perceive playful
incongruity in a stimulus event. This perceptual process draws on systems located in
many regions of the cerebral cortex involved in visual and auditory perception, lan-
guage comprehension, social cognition, logical reasoning, and so forth. When humor
is perceived, these cognitive processes stimulate emotional systems associated with
positive feelings of mirth and amusement, involving areas in the prefrontal cortex and
limbic system. These emotion systems also release a cocktail of biochemical mole-
cules, producing further changes in the brain and throughout the body via the auto-
nomic nervous system and endocrine system. In addition, the activation of mirthful
emotion typically triggers the expressive responses of smiling and laughter, which
involve the brainstem and its connections to the forebrain, as well as nerves leading
to muscles in the face, larynx, and respiratory system.
The investigation of these sorts of biological processes in humor lies within the
domain of biological psychology (also known as psychobiology or physiological psy-
chology), the branch of the discipline that studies the relation between behavior
and the body, particularly the brain. Biological psychology is part of a broader field
of study known as neuroscience, which also includes disciplines such as neurophysi-
ology, neuroanatomy, and brain biochemistry. Although the study of humor and
laughter has not been a major focus in biological psychology, there has been a small
153
6 • THE PSYCHOBIOLOGY OF HUMOR AND LAUGHTER
but steady output of research on this topic over the years. The recent publication
of several functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) studies (e.g., Azim et al.,
2005) as well as articles on topics such as the evolution of humor and laughter (e.g.,
Gervais and Wilson, 2005) suggest that interest in this topic is increasing (see also
Vaid, 2002).
As we will see, biological research on humor and laughter highlights the impor-
tance of emotional components of humor in addition to the cognitive aspects, point-
ing to humor as an interesting topic for investigating the interplay between emotion
and cognition more generally. As such, the psychobiological study of humor may be
viewed as a subject within the newly developing field of affective neuroscience
(Panksepp, 1998). Our discussion of biological aspects of humor also provides an
opportunity to focus more closely on many interesting questions concerning the
nature and functions of laughter.
In this chapter, I will begin by discussing laughter as an emotional display that
expresses the positive emotion of mirth, followed by an overview of research on the
acoustics, respiration, phonation, and facial expressions of laughter, as well as the auto-
nomic and visceral concomitants of mirth. The subsequent discussion of laughter in
nonhuman animals will underscore the close connection between humor, laughter,
and play. I will then explore several other laughter-related topics, including patho-
logical laughter conditions, laughter and the brain, and tickling as a stimulus for
laughter. Next, I will turn to investigations of the brain areas involved in the cogni-
tive and emotional processing of humor, including studies of humor in patients with
localized brain damage as well as studies of normal subjects using EEG and fMRI.
Finally, I will discuss theories about the evolutionary origins and adaptive functions
of humor and laughter.
THE NATURE OF LAUGHTER
As many authors have noted, boisterous laughter comprises a very strange set of
behaviors. A hypothetical alien from outer space would certainly be struck by the
oddity of this behavior, noting the loud, barking noises that are emitted, the repeti-
tive contractions of the diaphragm and associated changes in respiration, the open
mouth and grimaces caused by contractions of facial muscles, the flushing of the skin,
increased heart rate and general physiological arousal, production of tears in the eyes,
loss of strength in the extremities, and flailing body movements (cf. Askenasy, 1987;
Keith-Spiegel, 1972). Such hearty laughter seems to take over the whole organism in
an uncontrollable and compulsive way, conveying almost overwhelming feelings of
enjoyment and amusement. It is also very contagious and difficult to fake (van Hooff
and Preuschoft, 2003). What a peculiar way for people to respond to the perception
of humor!
Koestler (1964) characterized laughter as a physiological reflex, and suggested
that it is the only domain in which a highly complex mental stimulus (i.e., humor)
produces such a stereotyped reflexive response. However, as van Hooff and Preuschoft
THE NATURE OF LAUGHTER
(2003) have pointed out, the term reflex is a misnomer because, unlike reflexes, laugh-
ter is highly dependent on motivational and emotional states and social context.
Instead, laughter seems to be best characterized as a "fixed action pattern," a ritual-
ized and largely stereotyped behavior pattern that serves as a communication
signal.
Laughter and Emotion
As Charles Darwin (1872) noted in The Expression of the Emotions in Man and
Animals, laughter is essentially an emotional expression, a way of communicating to
others that one is feeling a particular emotion. Thus, laughter is one of many largely
hardwired behavior patterns used by humans to communicate a wide range of posi-
tive and negative emotions, including various facial expressions (e.g., scowling, frown-
ing), vocal sounds (e.g., gasping, screaming), bodily actions (e.g., trembling, shaking
the fist), changes in speech patterns (e.g., shouting, whining), and so on. In the
case of laughter, the particular emotion that is communicated is a pleasurable feeling
closely related to joy. As noted in Chapter 1 , researchers have not yet settled on an
agreed-upon technical name for this emotion, with different scholars referring to
it as "amusement," "humor appreciation," or "exhilaration." I prefer the term
mirth, which captures its emotional nature as well as its association with humor and
laughter.
The emotion of mirth is therefore primary, with laughter (along with smiling)
being an emotional display. The more intense the emotion, the stronger the expres-
sive display. At low levels of intensity, mirth is expressed by a faint smile, which turns
into a broader smile and then audible chuckling and laughter as the emotional inten-
sity increases. At very high intensity, it is expressed by loud guffaws, often accompa-
nied by a reddening of the face as well as bodily movements such as throwing back
the head, rocking the body, slapping one's thighs, and so on. Although, as we will
see, there is evidence that smiling and laughter may have different evolutionary
origins, they are very closely related in humans, with smiling and laughter occurring
along a continuum of emotional intensity. The same facial muscles are involved in
laughter and smiling, with stronger contractions of longer duration occurring in
laughter than in smiling (Ruch, 1993). The close connection between smiling and
laughter is also evident in the fact that laughter typically begins as a smile and, after
the laughter ends, gradually fades smoothly back into a smile once again (Pollio, Mers,
and Lucchesi, 1972).
Like all emotions, mirth has behavioral, physiological, and experiential compo-
nents. In addition to the vocalizations, facial expressions, and bodily actions that
characterize the expressive behavior of laughter, mirth involves a range of physiolog-
ical changes that take place in the brain, autonomic nervous system, and endocrine
system, along with subjective feelings of pleasure, amusement, and cheerfulness. I will
discuss each of these components in the following sections. As we will see, the emotion
of mirth that is expressed by laughter also appears to be closely related to play. Much
of the laughter of early childhood may be seen as an expression of the exuberant
6 • THE PSYCHOBIOLOGY OF HUMOR AND LAUGHTER
delight associated with physical play activities such as running, chasing, and rough-
and-tumble play-fighting, as well as incongruous playful actions such as peek-a-boo
games.
Since social play is an important activity in juveniles of all mammal species, the
evolutionary origins of mirth and laughter in play may well extend to our earliest
mammalian ancestors some 60 million years ago. As children's cognitive and linguis-
tic abilities develop, they begin to laugh not only at physical play, but also in response
to the sorts of playful manipulation of incongruous ideas, words, and concepts that
we call "humor." Thus, humor may be viewed as a cognitive-linguistic form of
play that elicits the emotion of mirth which, in turn, is typically expressed through
laughter.
Humor may not be the only stimulus that elicits the emotion of mirth and the
laughter that expresses it. This emotion may also be elicited by several other stimuli,
including nitrous oxide (N2O, or "laughing gas") and possibly tickling (Niethammer,
1983; Ruch, 1993). At any particular time, an individual's threshold for experiencing
mirth can be raised or lowered by a variety of factors, such as the social context (e.g.,
feelings of safety, the presence of other people who are laughing), one's current mood
(cheerfulness versus depression; Deckers, 1998; Ruch, 1997), health status, level of
fatigue, ingestion of alcohol or psychoactive drugs (Lowe et al., 1997; J. B. Weaver
et al., 1985), and more enduring personality traits such as one's overall sense of humor
(Ruch, 1993).
Acoustics of Laughter
The characteristic that most strikingly distinguishes laughter from other human
activities is the loud and distinctive sounds that are emitted. As we will see, the func-
tion of these laughter sounds appears to be both to communicate to others one's joyful
and playful emotional state, and to induce this same emotional state in the listeners
(Gervais and Wilson, 2005). In recent years, researchers have begun to study
the acoustics (sound properties) of laughter, employing methods commonly used by
ethologists to investigate animal vocalizations such as bird songs. In this research,
recordings of human laughter are digitized and then analyzed using computer-based
spectrographic procedures to examine their audio waveforms, frequency patterns, and
other acoustical characteristics. The unit of analysis in these studies is usually the
series of "ha-ha-ha" sounds that are made during a single exhalation. Researchers refer
to such a laugh episode as a laughter bout, and the individual "ha" syllables are referred
to as calls (Bachorowski et al., 2001), notes (Provine and Yong, 1991), or pulses (Ruch
and Ekman, 2001).
Psychologists Robert Provine and Yvonne Yong (1991), at the University of Mary-
land, analyzed the acoustical properties of 5 1 laughter bouts produced by male and
female university students and staff members. To obtain recordings of laughter, they
approached people in public places with a tape recorder and asked them to "simulate
hearty laughter." Most people found it very difficult to laugh on command, and their
first attempts were typically strained and artificial, presumably because they were not
THE NATURE OF LAUGHTER 15
actually experiencing the emotion of mirth that laughter normally expresses.
However, the funniness of the activity itself, along with the clowning and kidding of
the experimenters, typically caused the subjects to begin feeling amused and they
started laughing spontaneously and naturally. It was these natural and spontaneous
bouts of laughter that were subsequently analyzed.
These analyses revealed that, on average, each laugh bout consisted of four indi-
vidual notes or calls, although there was considerable variability in this number,
ranging from one to as many as 16 in some laughter samples, but typically no more
than eight. Each laugh note within a bout was found to begin with a protracted voice-
less aspirant (i.e., a hissing h sound not produced by vibration of the vocal cords). This
was followed by a forcefully voiced vowellike sound with an average duration of about
75 milliseconds. Another voiceless aspirant then followed, with an average duration
of about 135 milliseconds, followed by the next voiced vowel sound. Thus, each com-
plete "ha" note was about 210 milliseconds in duration, resulting in about five notes
typically being emitted per second. Not surprisingly, the fundamental frequency
(corresponding to the perceived pitch) of male laughter (averaging 276 Hertz) was
lower than that of females (502 Hertz), reflecting the lower pitch of men's voices.
Each laugh note showed a clear harmonic structure, with numerous secondary fre-
quencies occurring as multiples of the fundamental frequency, producing a richly
harmonious quality.
Based on their analyses, Provine and Yong emphasized the stereotypical nature
of laughter, observing that there was very little variability across people in such char-
acteristics as the overall duration of individual notes. Regardless of the number of
notes in a given bout of laughter, the duration of each note (onset-to-onset inter-note
interval, or INI) seemed to remain fairly constant, at about 210 milliseconds.
However, the voiced segment ("vowel sound") of each note became slightly shorter
from the beginning to the end of a laugh bout, while the intervening unvoiced (h
sound) segments became correspondingly longer, thus maintaining the same overall
duration for each note. They also observed that the amplitude (loudness) of each
voiced note segment decreased from the beginning to the end of a bout. Interestingly,
when played backwards, a laugh bout sounds quite normal, except for the fact that it
becomes progressively louder instead of quieter. This is quite different from human
speech, which does not sound at all normal when played backwards.
Because Provine and Yong's (1991) analyses were conducted on a relatively small
sample of laughs obtained from people who were asked to produce laughter on
demand, they may not have been representative of the full range of laughter that
occurs naturally in social settings. Consequently, they may have concluded that laugh-
ter is more stereotyped and unvarying than it actually is. More recently, Jo-Anne
Bachorowski and her colleagues (2001), at Vanderbilt University, conducted more
extensive acoustical analyses of laughter using recordings of 1024 laughter bouts from
97 male and female university students. To obtain a wide range of naturalistic laugh-
ter samples, recordings were made while the participants were watching humorous
videotapes in a comfortable laboratory setting, either alone or in same-sex or mixed-
sex dyads.
)8 6 • THE PSYCHOBIOLOGY OF HUMOR AND LAUGHTER
In contrast to the stereotypy of laughter emphasized by Provine and Yong, these
researchers found evidence of a great deal of variability and complexity in the acoustic
properties of laughter. Several different types of individual laugh calls (notes) were
identified, including voiced "songlike," unvoiced "gruntlike," and unvoiced "snort-
like" calls, in addition to "glottal pulses," and "glottal whistles." Several of these dif-
ferent types of calls were often observed within a single bout of laughter, and there
was little consistency within individual participants in the types of calls that they pro-
duced from one laugh bout to another. However, some general sex differences were
observed. Females produced significantly more bouts containing voiced, songlike
calls, whereas males produced more unvoiced, gruntlike laughs. Men and women did
not differ, though, in the frequency of unvoiced snortlike laughs. Although there were
no sex differences in the overall number of laugh bouts produced in response to the
humorous videotapes, men^ bouts tended to be slightly longer than women's, with
more calls per bout.
On average, laugh bouts were comprised of 3 .4 calls per bout, with a total dura-
tion of 870 milliseconds, but there was a great deal of variability in these numbers.
Laugh bouts typically began with a fairly long call (280 milliseconds duration) fol-
lowed by a series of shorter calls (lasting 130 milliseconds each). Like Provine and
Yong, these researchers found that the unvoiced ^-sound segments between calls
tended to be shorter at the beginning of a bout and then became progressively longer
toward the end. Analyses of fundamental frequencies of calls also indicated a consid-
erable amount of variability, both between and within individuals. Indeed, the funda-
mental frequencies were often found to change over the course of an individual call,
either rising or falling in pitch. Compared to shorter bouts, longer bouts of laughter
tended to have higher mean fundamental frequencies and greater shifts in frequency
within calls.
Analyses of the vowel sounds in voiced calls revealed that these are not nearly as
distinct or clearly articulated as the vowels of speech, but tend to be a central, unar-
ticulated schwa (like the a sound in "about"). Contrary to the observations of Provine
and Yong (1991), "ho-ho" and "he-he" laughs were extremely rare, while "ha-ha" was
much more common. Nonetheless, there was some evidence that individuals tend to
have distinct laughs based on slight variations in the vowel sounds and other vocal
characteristics that they produce while laughing. Bachorowski and her colleagues con-
cluded that laughter is much less stereotyped than claimed by Provine and Yong
(1991), but instead should be conceptualized as a "repertoire of sounds." Arguing that
laughter has an important social communication function (discussed in Chapter 5),
they suggested that these different sounds of laughter are combined in various ways
to communicate subtle differences in emotional meanings to other people.
In a series of experiments, Silke Kipper and Dietmar Todt (2001, 2003a, 2003b),
at the Free University of Berlin, took a somewhat different approach to studying the
acoustics of laughter. Using computer equipment, they systematically modified
various acoustical parameters of natural laughter bouts, such as the duration of laugh
notes, the fundamental frequencies, and amplitude (loudness). They then had partic-
ipants listen to these altered laugh bouts and asked them to rate the degree to which
THE NATURE OF LAUGHTER
these laughs sounded like normal laughter, as well as rating their emotional responses
to them. Among a number of interesting findings, these researchers found that laugh-
ter can diverge to a considerable degree on various acoustical parameters and still be
perceived as normal laughter. Moreover, laugh bouts that showed substantial vari-
ability across calls were considered more natural and elicited more positive emotional
responses as compared to more stereotyped bouts containing little variability. These
findings cast further doubt on the view of laughter as a highly stereotyped vocaliza-
tion. Additional findings from these studies supported the view of laughter as a
method of communicating positive emotions and eliciting similar emotional responses
in others. For example, the more natural-sounding a laugh bout was rated to be, the
more it elicited a positive emotional response (for additional acoustical research on
laughter, see Mowrer, 1994; Mowrer, LaPointe, and Case, 1987; Nwokah et al., 1999;
Vettin and Todt, 2004).
Laughter Respiration and Phonation
To produce the distinctive sounds of laughter, we make use of a number of muscles
that control our breathing, larynx, and vocal apparatus (for a detailed description see
Ruch and Ekman, 2001). The normal human breathing cycle consists of inspiration,
inspiration pause, expiration, and expiration pause. Regardless of where the person
happens to be in this cycle, laughter typically begins with an initial forced exhalation
(Lloyd, 1938), which brings the lung volume down to around functional residual
capacity (i.e., the volume that remains after a normal expiration). This is followed by
a sustained sequence of repeated, rapid, and shallow expirations, which, when accom-
panied by phonation, produce the "ha-ha-ha" of laughter. By the end of this expira-
tory laugh bout, the lungs reach residual volume (i.e., the air volume remaining in the
lungs after maximal expiration). Thus, laughter typically occurs at a low lung volume,
forcing out more air from the lungs than occurs during normal breathing. Following
a laughter bout, a quick inhalation occurs, filling the lungs once again to normal capac-
ity. Another laughter bout may then follow. Due to this unusual amount of expira-
tion, laughter produces a greatly increased breathing amplitude, up to 2.5 times
greater than that which occurs during normal breathing.
The predominantly expiratory respiration pattern during laughter is produced by
saccadic contractions of muscles that are normally passive during expiration, includ-
ing the diaphragm, abdominal (rectus abdominus), and rib cage (triangularis stemi}
muscles (Ruch and Ekman, 2001). Along with the action of these respiratory muscles,
respiration during laughter is also regulated by the larynx, which serves as a valve sep-
arating the trachea from the upper aerodigestive tract. In the larynx, the glottis (com-
prising the vocal folds) initially closes to prevent the air from being exhaled too
quickly, causing a buildup of subglottal air pressure. The glottis, aided by the ary-
tenoid cartilages, then begins to open and close rhythmically, permitting short bursts
of pressurized air to escape. Each time the glottis closes to a narrow slit, the vocal
cords begin to vibrate, producing the "ha" sounds. Because the glottis continues
to move and change shape while these vibrations are occurring, the fundamental
6 • THE PSYCHOBIOLOGY OF HUMOR AND LAUGHTER
frequency (pitch) of the sound produced rises and falls during each individual call, as
well as changing from one call to the next, rather than maintaining a constant fre-
quency. Each time the glottis opens more widely, it stops vibrating, and the escaping
air produces the unvoiced h sound between each voiced call.
These sound vibrations are carried through the vocal tract, whose shape ampli-
fies or dampens various frequency characteristics of the sounds, and finally the air
escapes through the mouth or nose. The amount of tension on the vocal cords; posi-
tion of the larynx, tongue, and jaw; shape of the mouth and lips; and even the degree
of contraction of various facial muscles (all of which can be influenced by the person's
current emotional state) further influence the sound quality of the laughter. As found
in research on the acoustics of laughter (Bachorowski et al., 2001), there is also a great
deal of variability, both within and between individuals, in the patterns of respiration
and phonation during laughter (W. F. Fry and Rader, 1977; Svebak, 1975, 1977). Thus,
people seem to have distinctive "laugh signatures," making their laughs as recogniz-
able as their voices. However, individuals also demonstrate a great deal of variability
in their laughter acoustics depending in part on their current emotional state, result-
ing in characteristic fearful, embarrassed, aggressive, and other emotionally tinged
laughs in addition to pure enjoyment laughs.
Facial Expressions of Laughter and Smiling
Besides the loud and distinctive "ha-ha-ha" sounds, laughter is characterized by
a distinctive facial display, which closely resembles smiling. This emotional facial
display is another way laughter serves as a communication signal. Paul Ekman and his
colleagues, at the University of California at San Francisco, have conducted extensive
research on facial expressions of emotion, including smiling and laughter (Ekman,
Davidson, and Friesen, 1990; Ekman and Friesen, 1978; Frank and Ekman, 1993).
Although they have identified 1 8 different types of smiles, Ekman and his colleagues
have found only one that is reliably associated with genuine enjoyment or amusement.
They have named this smile the Duchenne display, after the French anatomist who first
identified it in 1 862 . Other types of smiles are associated with feigned amusement
("forced" or "faked" smiles) or the presence of negative emotions such as embarrass-
ment or anxiety mixed with the enjoyment.
The Duchenne display involves symmetrical, synchronous, and smooth contrac-
tions of both the zygomatic major and the obicularis oculi muscles of the face (see Figure
4). The zygomatic major is the muscle in the cheeks that pulls the lip corners upwards
and backwards, while the obicularis oculi is the muscle that surrounds each eye socket
and causes wrinkling of the skin at the outer sides of the eyes ("crow's feet"). Although
most types of smiles involve contractions of the zygomatic major, only genuine enjoy-
ment smiles also involve the obicularis oculi, which is less subject to voluntary control.
Smiles that involve other facial muscles besides these two generally indicate the pres-
ence of other (often negative) emotions besides pure enjoyment. For example, con-
tractions of muscles in the forehead during smiling tend to be associated with negative
emotions (S. L. Brown and Schwartz, 1980).
THE NATURE OF LAUGHTER
FIGURE 4 The Duchenne display expresses genuine mirth. Note the "crow's feet" at
outsides of eyes due to contraction of obicularis oculi muscles. © Barbara Penoyar/Getty
Images/PhotoDisc
The Duchenne display occurs in laughter as well as smiling, although laughter
often includes some additional muscles, such as those involved in opening the mouth
and lowering the jaw (Ruch and Ekman, 2001). Thus, the presence or absence of the
Duchenne display can be used by researchers (as well as any careful observer in social
interactions) to determine whether a person's smiling or laughter is expressing
genuine, spontaneous enjoyment or if it betrays other emotions or is being used to
feign amusement. In particular, the presence of "crow's feet" wrinkles along the out-
sides of the eyes is an indicator of genuine amusement.
Ekman and Friesen (1978) have developed the Facial Action Coding System
(FAGS) for use by trained observers to code the various facial action units controlled
by different muscles of the face in the expression of different emotions. Although this
system requires some training and practice, it is very useful for researchers who are
interested in studying laughter, as it provides them a way of distinguishing between
Duchenne and non-Duchenne laughter. There is a considerable amount of research
evidence that laughter with and without the Duchenne display has very different psy-
chological meanings.
Differences between Duchenne and nonDuchenne laughter were demonstrated
in a study by Dacher Keltner and George Bonanno (1997) at the University of Cali-
fornia at Berkeley. They videotaped interviews of adults whose spouses had died six
6 • THE PSYCHOBIOLOGY OF HUMOR AND LAUGHTER
months previously, and used the FACS to code the laughter produced by these par-
ticipants during the interviews. Greater frequencies of Duchenne laughter were found
to be significantly correlated with more positive emotions such as happiness and joy,
and less negative emotions such as anger, distress, and guilt. The amount of Duchenne
laughter was also positively associated with better social adjustment, recollections of
a more satisfactory relationship with the deceased spouse, and better current rela-
tionships with others. In contrast, non-Duchenne laughter was not related to any of
these variables.
The videotapes, with the sound turned off, were later shown to college
students who were asked to rate them on a number of dimensions. More frequent
Duchenne laughter in the bereaved participants was significantly correlated with
higher self-ratings of positive emotions in the observers themselves and with the
observers' judgments that the participant was healthier, better adjusted, less frustrated,
and more amusing. Thus, subtle differences in facial expressions during laughter,
signaling the presence or absence of the Duchenne display, communicate quite dif-
ferent emotional states, and these expressions in turn influence the emotional
responses of observers. These findings further highlight the role of laughter as a form
of emotional communication.
AUTONOMIC AND VISCERAL CONCOMITANTS OF MIRTH
Like other emotions, the emotion of mirth that is expressed by laughter also
produces changes in many parts of the body via the autonomic nervous system and
the endocrine (hormone) system (Cacioppo et al., 2000). Since the 1960s, many
researchers have investigated mirth-related changes in heart rate, skin conductance,
blood pressure, skin temperature, muscle tension, and so on. In these studies, partic-
ipants are attached via electrodes and sensors to polygraph machines, and various psy-
chophysiological variables are assessed while they are exposed to humorous stimuli
such as comedy videotapes. Control conditions involving nonhumorous, emotionally
neutral stimuli, or stimuli that elicit other emotions (e.g., fear, sadness, anger), are
also included for comparison. Although there have been some inconsistent findings
(e.g., Harrison et al., 2000; Hubert and de Jong-Meyer, 1991), the results of these
investigations generally indicate that mirth is associated with increased activity of the
sympathetic nervous system, the branch of the autonomic nervous system associated
with the well-known fight-or-flight response (see McGhee, 1983b, for a review of
early research).
Lennart Levi (1965) found significant increases in adrenaline and noradrenaline
output (measured in urine samples) while subjects watched a comedy film as com-
pared to watching an emotionally neutral nature film, and these humor-related
increases were comparable to those found with fear- and anger-evoking films. Other
experiments have found mirth-related increases in heart rate, skin conductance, and
other variables associated with sympathetic arousal (Averill, 1969; P. S. Foster,
Webster, and Williamson, 2002; Godkewitsch, 1976; Goldstein et al., 1975; Hubert
AUTONOMIC AND VISCERAL CONCOMITANTS OF MIRTH
and de Jong-Meyer, 1990; J. M. Jones and Harris, 1971; Langevin and Day, 1972;
Marci, Moran, and Orr, 2004). These effects indicate activation of the sympathetic-
adrenal-medullary (SAM) system, the well-known fight-or-flight response of sympa-
thetic nervous system arousal under the control of the hypothalamus, which is also
involved in stress-related emotional responses such as fear and anger. In several of
these experiments, the participants were asked to rate the funniness of the humor
stimuli, and significant positive correlations were found between these funniness
ratings and the amount of increase in physiological arousal. Thus, higher levels of
amusement (which presumably indicate stronger feelings of mirth) were systemati-
cally related to greater increases in sympathetic nervous system activation.
In addition to SAM activation, there is some evidence that extended periods of
mirth are associated with activation of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenocortical
(HPA) system, the classic stress response that causes the adrenal cortex to release cor-
tisol into the bloodstream. Although exposure to a fairly brief (nine minutes duration)
humorous animated cartoon did not produce an increase in salivary cortisol levels
(Hubert and de Jong-Meyer, 1990), a longer (90 minutes duration) and arguably more
humorous film (a Monty Python movie) did produce significant increases in cortisol
compared to an emotionally neutral nature film (Hubert et al., 1993). In the latter
study, 50 percent of participants showed HPA activation, as indicated by significantly
increased cortisol levels relative to baseline, starting about one hour after the begin-
ning of the comedy film and continuing for one hour after the film ended. The amount
of increase in cortisol over baseline was also found to be positively correlated with
participants' ratings of the funniness of the film, indicating that the more amusing the
film was perceived to be (and therefore the more mirth experienced), the more cor-
tisol was released.
It is worth noting that these increases in physiological arousal are likely best
viewed as a function of the emotion of mirth rather than being a consequence of
laughter per se. Significant increases in heart rate and skin conductance have also been
found when a mirthful emotional state was induced by having research participants
vividly remember or imagine a humorous experience, without actually laughing (P. S.
Foster et al., 2002). In addition, the observed correlations between funniness ratings
and changes in physiological variables support the view that the degree of arousal is
related to subjective feelings of amusement rather than to the amount of laughter.
Thus, rather than laughter causing physiological arousal, it seems more accurate to
view both laughter and peripheral autonomic arousal as being relatively independent
(although correlated) consequences of the emotional state of mirth.
Overall, these research findings indicate that mirth is associated with a pattern of
increased arousal similar to the fight-or-flight response, which prepares the body for
vigorous activity. However, there is also some evidence for the common notion that
mirth causes a loss of muscle tone. With vigorous laughter, people often feel a weak-
ness in their limbs and occasionally even fall to the floor, and the expression "weak
with laughter" is common to many languages (Overeem, Lammers, and Van Dijk,
1999). An early study found a decrease in muscle tone in the forearm of subjects
while they were laughing (Paskind, 1932). More recently, Sebastiaan Overeem and his
6 • THE PSYCHOBIOLOGY OF HUMOR AND LAUGHTER
colleagues (1999) examined the effects of mirth on the //-reflex, which is assessed by
electrically stimulating a nerve in the leg and using electromyography (EMG) to
measure the resultant activation of an adjacent muscle. The strength (amplitude) of
this reflex is governed by descending pathways from the brain. A severe reduction in
amplitude is indicative of motor inhibition or muscle weakness, such as that seen in
cases of cataplexy, in which afflicted individuals suddenly collapse due to a general loss
of muscle tone.
In their study, Overeem and colleagues found that the //-reflex decreased by
almost 90 percent while individuals were laughing in response to humorous slides. A
subsequent study demonstrated that this effect is due to the emotion of mirth under-
lying laughter, rather than the respiratory or motoric effects of laughter itself
(Overeem et al., 2004). Thus, there appears to be truth to the idea that laughter causes
muscle weakness, although it seems more accurate to say that this weakness is caused
by the mirthful emotion underlying laughter. This phenomenon is the basis of theo-
ries suggesting that laughter is a "disabling mechanism" whose function is to prevent
individuals from acting in counterproductive ways (Chafe, 1987), as well as sugges-
tions that humor and laughter might be used in psychotherapy as a relaxation induc-
tion technique (Prerost and Ruma, 1987).
It may seem puzzling that the positive emotion of mirth is accompanied by the
same general pattern of physiological arousal as are stress-related negative emotions
like fear and anger. If mirth is a positive emotion that is presumably beneficial to
health, why does it have the same physiological effects as stress-related emotions that
are known to be injurious to health? One possible explanation for these findings has
to do with the hypothesis that the positive emotion associated with laughter origi-
nated in rough-and-tumble play. Just as many systems of the body are rapidly mobi-
lized for the exertion of either fighting or fleeing during times of threat, many of these
same systems may also be activated for the exuberant, exciting, and prosocial chasing,
fleeing, jumping, and wrestling of mammalian play. It should also be noted that stress-
related illnesses tend to result from chronic activation and inadequate recovery from
sympathetic arousal (Mayne, 2001). The more phasic short-term arousal associated
with mirth is therefore less likely to have such adverse consequences.
Moreover, it is still unclear whether the physiological arousal associated with
mirth is identical to the arousal accompanying negative stress-related emotions, or
whether it is different in some respects. There is some evidence that mirth and other
positive emotions may be distinguished from negative emotions on the basis of the
overall pattern of physiological changes associated with them (Christie and Friedman,
2004; Harrison et al., 2000). For example, positive emotions, compared to negative
emotions, seem to involve a smaller increase in blood pressure and less autonomic
activation overall (Cacioppo et al., 2000). However, the research to date is inconclu-
sive, and there continues to be some controversy concerning the "emotional speci-
ficity" of autonomic nervous system activity.
Some researchers (e.g., Gray, 1994; LeDoux, 1994) have also pointed out that
peripheral changes in the autonomic nervous system and endocrine system may be
the wrong place to look for physiological differences among different emotions, since
LAUGHTER IN NONHUMAN ANIMALS
these systems have to do with functions that may be common to many different emo-
tions, such as energy requirements, metabolism, and tissue repair. Instead, they have
argued that more important differences are likely to be found in the brain systems
that underlie different emotions. Thus, although the somatovisceral changes accom-
panying mirth may be quite similar to those associated with negative emotions like
anger and fear, there are likely to be important differences in the brain systems under-
lying these emotions, including the biochemical molecules (e.g., neuropeptides, neu-
rotransmitters, opioids) that are produced (Panksepp, 1993, 1994). These in turn may
have different implications for health, such as different effects on components of the
immune system (Kennedy, Glaser, and Kiecolt-Glaser, 1990). This is an important
topic for future investigation. Potential effects of humor and laughter on physical
health will be discussed in greater detail in Chapter 10.
LAUGHTER IN NONHUMAN ANIMALS
Although some writers have suggested that humans are the only animal that
laughs (e.g., Stearns, 1972), there is good reason to believe that homologous behav-
iors also exist in other animals, particularly our closest ape relatives. Charles Darwin
(1872), who viewed laughter as an expression of the positive emotions of joy and hap-
piness, described a form of laughter that is emitted by young chimpanzees when they
are being tickled. This observation has been supported by more recent primate
research, which suggests that laughter in humans is homologous with (i.e., has the
same evolutionary origin as) the relaxed open-mouth display or "play face" seen in
monkeys and apes (Preuschoft and van Hooff, 1997; van Hooff, 1972; van Hooff and
Preuschoft, 2003).
The Play Face
Van Hooff and Preuschoft (2003, p. 267) described this facial expression as
follows:
The mouth is opened wide and the mouth corners may be slightly retracted. In most (but not all!)
primate species the lips are not retracted but still cover the teeth. In many species this facial posture
is often accompanied by a rhythmic staccato shallow breathing (play chuckles) and by vehement but
supple body movements. The posture and movements, both of the face and of the body as a whole,
lack the tension, rigidity, and brusqueness that is characteristic of expressions of aggression, threat,
and fear.
The play face, as the name suggests, occurs while the animals are involved in social
play. Play is a common activity among juveniles, not only in primates but in all
mammal species and even some birds. In play, many activities that are normally impor-
tant for survival, such as hunting, fighting, mating, fleeing, and simple locomotion
(jumping, sliding, pirouetting), are performed "just for fun," with a great deal of exu-
berance and energy. Young primates spend many hours in playful mock fighting,
6 • THE PS YCHOBIO LOGY OF HUMOR AND LAUGHTER
chasing, attacking, wrestling, and tickling one another, perhaps as a way of program-
ming various cortical functions and developing the social skills needed to perform
such behaviors in more "serious" contexts later in life (Gervais and Wilson, 2005;
Panksepp, 1998). Since many of these behaviors would normally be construed by other
individuals as aggressive and could lead to serious retaliation and physical harm,
animals need a way of clearly signaling to others that these activities are not serious,
but are merely intended "for fun." In primates, this communicative signal is the play
face, along with the breathy, panting laughter-like grunts that accompany it in some
species.
It is interesting to note that, by means of the play face, animals demonstrate an
ability to distinguish between reality and pretense, seriousness and play, which, as we
have seen in Chapters 1 and 5, are arguably the essence of humor. Thus, one can make
the case that a rudimentary form of humor — in addition to laughter — is evident even
in nonhuman animals. Interestingly, chimpanzees and gorillas that have been taught
to communicate by means of sign language have been observed to use language in
playful ways, such as punning, humorous insults, and incongruous word use, indicat-
ing a rudimentary sense of humor (see Gamble, 2001, for a review). Moreover,
this humorous use of sign language in apes is typically accompanied by the play face,
providing further evidence for the close connection between linguistic humor and
play.
With our more highly developed cognitive and linguistic capacities, we humans
are able to extend these playful behaviors into the realm of concepts and ideas, cre-
ating nonserious, playful alternative realities that we share with one another through
language. Thus, humor in humans appears to have originated in social play, an ancient
mammalian emotion-behavior complex. Interestingly, comparable play faces occur in
many other mammals besides primates. For example, the canidae (dogs, wolves, and
foxes) and ursinae (bears) have a gape-mouthed play face in which the upper teeth
remain covered, which is accompanied by boisterous, frolicsome body movements and
rapid panting that is very reminiscent of the play panting of primates (van Hooff
and Preuschoft, 2003). Thus, the evolutionary origins of the relaxed open-mouth play
face, which in humans seems to have evolved into laughter, appear to go back many
millions of years.
Laughter and Smiling in Apes
The "laughter" that was observed by Darwin in chimpanzees is a staccato, gut-
tural, throaty panting sound associated with rapid and shallow breathing, which typ-
ically accompanies the relaxed open-mouth play face display. A similar pattern is seen
in many other primates, including gorillas, orangutans, and macaques, although the
vocalization is less pronounced in some species (van Hooff and Preuschoft, 2003). A
major difference between the laughter of humans and chimpanzees is that, in chim-
panzee laughter, the breathing involves a rapid alternation between shallow inhala-
tions and exhalations, with single sounds being produced during each inhalation and
exhalation. In contrast, as we have seen, human laughter involves a series of multiple
LAUGHTER IN NONHUMAN ANIMALS
"ha-ha-ha" sounds occurring during a single exhalation, with no vocalization during
the intervening inhalations. Consequently, chimpanzee laughter sounds very differ-
ent from that of humans (Provine, 2000). Thus, although the two forms of laughter
appear to have the same evolutionary origins, they have diverged considerably in the
6 million or so years since our common ancestor with chimpanzees (Gervais and
Wilson, 2005; Owren and Bachorowski, 2001).
Chimp laughter and the play face are readily elicited during playful interactions
between human caretakers and juvenile chimpanzees in zoos. As with human infants,
tickling and peek-a-boo games containing an element of surprise, occurring in a
relaxed and trusting social atmosphere, are particularly effective elicitors of laughter
in chimps. Among conspecifics (i.e., members of the same species), play faces and the
voiced breathing laughter occur during boisterous rough-and-tumble play-wrestling
and play-chasing. The individuals alternate between chasing and being chased, coor-
dinating their activities by means of these play signals (van Hooff and Preuschoft,
2003). It is easy to see parallels in the boisterous laughter of human children during
rough-and-tumble play, and only a short step to the more intellectually-based play
with words and ideas in the laughter-evoking humor of human adults.
Although the play face and laughter in primates often occur in the context of play
fighting and "quasi-aggression" (Butovskaya and Kozintsev, 1996), comparative
research does not support the view that laughter originated in aggressive displays used
to intimidate and ridicule adversaries and signal one's superiority over them (cf.
Gruner, 1997). Instead, the research tends to support Darwin's view of laughter as an
original expression of happiness, joy, and high spirits associated with play (van Hooff
and Preuschoft, 2003). Drawing on his studies of the neural bases of play in labora-
tory rats, Panksepp (1998) provided considerable evidence that play and aggression
are mediated by different brain systems (see also D. P. Fry, 2005).
At the same time, though, researchers recognize that laughter, like play, tends to
be competitive and can be used in aggressive ways. Indeed, Panksepp (1998) describes
rough-and-tumble play in all mammal species as "joyful social exchange with a strong
competitive edge" (p. 284). During bouts of play, animals frequently pin each other
down, and one individual often emerges as the more dominant. However, for the
playful interactions to continue, this individual must also allow the less dominant
one to "win" quite frequently. In much the same way, teasing and other forms of
verbal play in humans appear to be ways of competing in a friendly way, and those
who tease others are required also to playfully accept the teasing directed at them by
others.
Interestingly, smiling likely has a somewhat different evolutionary origin than
laughter (van Hooff and Preuschoft, 2003). While laughter appears to be related to
the relaxed open-mouth display, smiling in humans seems to be homologous to
another facial pattern, the silent bared-teeth display, which is seen in primates as well
as many other species of mammals. In this display, the animal retracts its mouth
corners and lifts its lips, baring its teeth, while keeping its mouth more or less closed.
When shown by a lower-status individual, this display is a signal of fearful submis-
sion and appeasement; in a higher-status individual, it signals friendly reassurance and
6 • THE PSYCHOB IOLOGY OF HUMOR AND LAUGHTER
lack of hostile intent. Thus, rather than simply being a more subdued, low-intensity
form of laughter, smiling seems to have originated in a different signal altogether.
Functional differences between smiling and laughter are still apparent to some degree
in humans, with smiling occurring more often than laughter in nonhumorous con-
texts such as friendly greeting, signaling of appeasement, and embarrassment.
Nonetheless, smiling and laughter, though apparently originating in different dis-
plays, seem to have moved quite closely together in humans, to the point where they
often represent different degrees of intensity of the same emotional state. Thus, a
smile may be an expression of mild amusement in response to a joke, whereas a laugh
communicates much greater enjoyment (Ruch, 1993). This is reflected in many lan-
guages, in which the word for smile is a diminutive of the word for laughter (e.g.,
French sourire and rire), I will return to the discussion of possible evolutionary origins
of smiling and laughter in a later section.
"Laughter" in Rats?
Thus far, we have considered evidence that the origins of human laughter go back
at least as far as the evolutionary ancestors that we share with our closest living rela-
tive, the chimpanzee, and, in the form of the play face, even to the common ances-
tors of all primates. Recently, biological psychologist Jaak Panksepp and his colleagues
at Bowling Green State University have provided intriguing evidence that a form of
laughter may even exist in rats (Panksepp, 2000; Panksepp and Burgdorf, 2000, 2003).
They have found that laboratory rats produce a high-frequency (approximately
50 kHz), ultrasonic chirping sound during social rough-and-tumble play and also
when being tickled by human handlers. Although humans are unable to hear these
sounds without the aid of specialized sound equipment, they are within the auditory
range in which rats communicate.
Rats seem to be most ticklish on the nape of the neck, although they also appar-
ently enjoy a "full body" tickle. When they have previously been tickled by a human
hand, they will eagerly approach that hand rather than one that has merely petted
them, chirping all the while. Like laughter among humans, this rat "laughter" appears
to be contagious, and young rats generally prefer to spend time with older animals
that produce more of this chirping sound as compared to those that do not. This
chirping "laughter" is also readily conditioned using both classical and operant
methods, and animals will run mazes and press levers for an opportunity to be tickled
and "laugh." Rat "laughter" can easily be amplified or reduced by selective genetic
breeding, indicating that it reflects a heritable emotional trait. As we will see in later
chapters, a comparable genetically based trait in humans may underlie our concept of
"sense of humor" (Ruch and Carrell, 1998).
Panksepp and Burgdorf (2003) have suggested that this chirping "laughter" arises
from organized "ludic" (from Greek ludos = play) brain circuits that form the "emo-
tional operating system" for the positive emotion of joy (or what I call mirth), which
is activated during social play, and which may be common to all mammals. They pos-
tulated that play-related joy has an important social facilitation and bonding function
PATHOLOGICAL LAUGHTER
in mammals, promoting cooperative forms of social engagement and helping
to organize social dynamics. They suggested that rough-and-tumble play in rats,
accompanied by chirping "laughter," may provide a useful animal model for
researchers to investigate the brain structures mediating positive emotions relating to
play and laughter, in much the same way that other animal models have been used to
elucidate the brain mechanisms of negative emotions such as fear and anger
(Panksepp, 1998).
Research using this model has already begun to shed light on the neural bases of
positive playful emotion. For example, this research suggests an important role of
endorphins and other opioids, the morphine-like substances created in certain brain
sites. Low doses of morphine increase play in rats, whereas the opiate antagonist
naloxone (which inhibits the effect of opioids) decreases play (Panksepp, 1998). These
findings suggest that opioid systems may also be involved in mirthful humor and
laughter in humans. Human laughter is very different from ultrasonic chirping in rats,
and many researchers believe it is too much of a stretch to view the two as having any
real evolutionary connection (Gervais and Wilson, 2005). Nonetheless, they may both
relate to homologous brain structures found in all mammals which have an important
social-emotional function and an ancient evolutionary origin relating to social play.
Thus, these animal studies suggest that the feelings of hilarity and mirth that we expe-
rience in humor originated in the exhilaration and joy of rough-and-tumble social
play that is a prominent activity of all mammals.
PATHOLOGICAL LAUGHTER
Brain disorders involving pathological laughter are well known in the neurolog-
ical literature, and numerous cases have been reported since the late 1800s
(Duchowny, 1983; Forabosco, 1998; Poeck, 1985). The study of pathological laugh-
ter, in connection with knowledge of the underlying brain abnormalities, is one way
that neuroscientists have been able to make inferences about the brain sites that may
be involved in normal laughter. Although pathological laughter closely resembles
natural laughter, it is considered abnormal because of the presence of unusual motor
patterns, or a lack of accompanying pleasant and mirthful emotional experience, or
because it occurs in an inappropriate social context in the absence of humorous
stimuli.
Duchowny (1983) distinguished three major categories of pathological laughter,
each of which has different clinical manifestations and anatomical substrates: (1) exces-
sive laughter, (2) forced laughter, and (3) gelastic epilepsy. Excessive laughter condi-
tions involve emotional lability, heightened feelings of mirth and euphoria, an inability
to inhibit laughter, and a lack of insight into the abnormality of the laughter. These
conditions most commonly occur in adulthood and tend to be associated with disor-
ders such as schizophrenia, mania, and dementia. These disorders appear to affect
parts of the brain involved in emotion production and regulation, including structures
in the limbic system and parts of the frontal lobes.
6 • THE PSYCHOB1OLOGY OF HUMOR AND LAUGHTER
In forced laughter conditions, the second broad category of pathological laughter,
patients experience involuntary outbursts of explosive, self-sustained laughter, often
accompanied by autonomic disturbances of heart rate, vasomotor control, and sphinc-
ter tone. Although they may appear to others to be feeling genuinely amused, these
patients usually do not subjectively experience the positive emotion of mirth that nor-
mally accompanies laughter, but instead often experience it as unpleasant, embar-
rassing, and something to be endured. Many patients with this condition also exhibit
pathological crying, with fits of laughter merging into crying or vice versa. It is occa-
sionally even difficult to tell whether they are laughing or crying. This indicates that
some of the brain centers controlling laughter and crying are located very close
together (likely in the part of the brainstem called the pons), suggesting a close link
between the positive emotions of social play and the distressing emotions associated
with social separation (Panksepp, 1998).
Conditions involving forced laughter typically begin in adulthood and can result
from a variety of disorders, including degenerative brain conditions such as Parkin-
son's disease, multiple sclerosis (MS), and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), as well
as tumors and lesions in various parts of the brain due to cerebrovascular accidents
(strokes) and brain injury. In the condition called fou rire prodromique, uncontrolled
laughter lasting up to a half hour or even longer signals the onset of a stroke in the
brainstem. In some tragic cases, people have literally laughed themselves to death.
Pathological "forced laughter" conditions have been associated with lesions in many
areas of the brain, ranging from the frontal and temporal lobes of the cortex and the
pyramidal tracts to the ventral mesencephalon, the cerebellum, and the pons (Wild
et al., 2003; Zeilig et al., 1996). In most of these cases, the effect of the lesions seems
to be chronic disinhibition of laughter-generating circuitry (i.e., an inability to inhibit
or modulate laughter normally), rather than an excitatory effect.
The third general category of pathological laughter, gelastic epilepsy (from Greek
gelos = laughter) involves relatively rare epileptic conditions in which the seizures pre-
dominantly take the form of bouts of laughter. These seizures are often accompanied
by motor convulsions, eye movement abnormalities, and autonomic disturbances.
During the seizures, patients typically (but not always) lose consciousness and are
therefore unaware of the laugh attack. In cases in which the patients remain conscious
during the seizure, some report a pleasant feeling of mirth, but others experience the
laughter as inappropriate and even unpleasant. The laughter typically lasts less than
a minute, but can be more prolonged when associated with complex partial seizures
(Arroyo et al., 1993). Gelastic epilepsy usually begins in childhood, and cases have
even been reported in newborn infants, demonstrating that the neural circuits for
laughter are fully developed at birth (Sher and Brown, 1976).
Brain-imaging studies have identified several brain regions that are associated
with gelastic seizures, most importantly the hypothalamus, temporal lobes, and medial
frontal lobe (Arroyo et al., 1993). The most common type of gelastic epilepsy, which
has also been studied most extensively, is associated with hypothalamic hamartomas,
which consist of nonmalignant abnormal tissue growth in the hypothalamus. Research
has shown that hypothalamic and pituitary hormones are released during these
LAUGHTER AND THE BRAIN
seizures, and it appears that the abnormal hypothalamic electrical activity has excita-
tory effects, spreading to areas in the neighboring limbic system and also to the brain-
stem to produce the psychophysiological manifestations of laughter (Wild et al.,
2003). These findings suggest that the hypothalamus likely has an important role in
normal laughter as well. As noted earlier, the hypothalamus is well-known as a control
center for the autonomic arousal associated with the fight-flight response, as well as
regulating a range of motivational states including hunger and sexual arousal (as psy-
chology professors frequently explain to their students, the hypothalamus is respon-
sible for the four u/'s": feeding, fighting, fleeing, and sexual intercourse).
LAUGHTER AND THE BRAIN
Studies of patients with brain lesions demonstrate that there are two separate
pathways in the brain that can lead to the production of smiling and laughter, one
voluntary and unemotional, and the other involuntary and emotional. Some patients
who have suffered a stroke or other brain injury, causing them to be unable to vol-
untarily move their facial muscles (volitional facial paresis), are nonetheless able to
smile and laugh normally when they find something funny (i.e., when they experience
the emotion of mirth). On the other hand, some patients with lesions of subcortical
nuclei in regions such as the basal ganglia (as in Parkinson's disease) are unable to
show spontaneous, emotional facial expressions when they are subjectively feeling
amused, but are able to smile voluntarily on command (Wild et al., 2003).
The voluntary facial movements likely originate in the motor strip on the cere-
bral cortex and arrive quite directly at the face via the corticospinal tracts of the
pyramidal motor system, whereas the involuntary, emotional movements arise from
subcortical nuclei and arrive at the face via the extrapyramidal system, involving many
emotion-related regions in the basal ganglia, limbic system, and brainstem (Frank and
Ekman, 1993). There is also evidence that voluntary control of laughter is mediated
by ventral areas of the mesencephalon and pons, whereas emotional control involves
dorsal areas of these same structures (Wild et al., 2003). These findings help to explain
the differences in facial expressions associated with genuine (Duchenne) and feigned
(non-Duchenne) smiling and laughter, discussed earlier.
Further evidence for separate neural substrates of emotional and voluntary
smiling and laughter was provided by a recent study that made use of positron emis-
sion tomography (PET), a brain-imaging technique (Iwase et al., 2002). The brains
of healthy participants were scanned while they were smiling, either spontaneously in
response to humorous videotapes or voluntarily while watching nonhumorous video-
tapes. The results showed different patterns of regional cerebral blood flow (rCBF)
during the two different types of facial expression. In particular, emotional smiling
led to greater activation of areas of the cortex involved in the processing and inte-
gration of visual information (bilateral occipital and occipitotemporal cortices and left
anterior temporal cortex), as well as cortical areas that are closely related to the limbic
system and are involved in emotional reward (ventromedial orbitofrontal cortex and
6 • THE PSYCHOB1OLOGY OF HUMOR AND LAUGHTER
medial prefrontal cortex). In contrast, nonemotional voluntary facial movements
mimicking smiling led to greater activation of areas of the frontal cortex involved in
voluntary facial movement (facial area of the left primary motor strip and bilateral
supplementary motor area).
In addition to evidence that different brain circuits are involved in voluntary and
emotional forms of smiling and laughter, there is also evidence from cases involving
electrical brain stimulation that the cognitive aspects of humor can be dissociated from
the emotional and motoric components. When patients are undergoing brain surgery
for treatment of epileptic seizures, surgeons commonly electrically stimulate various
areas of the exposed surface of the brain, in order to localize areas that should and
should not be removed. The patients remain conscious during this procedure. These
electrical probes occasionally trigger laughter in the patients, with or without accom-
panying feelings of mirth.
As one example, Fried and colleagues (1998) described a 16-year-old female
patient who consistently began to laugh whenever her brain was stimulated in a small
region of the supplementary motor area located on the left frontal lobe of the cortex.
The laughter was accompanied by subjective feelings of merriment and mirth in the
patient. Interestingly, each time she laughed due to electrical stimulation, the patient
attributed her laughter to various stimuli in her environment. For example, she would
say that she had laughed because of the funny appearance of a picture of a horse that
she happened to be looking at, or because the people in the room seemed to be behav-
ing in an amusing way. It is important to note that this patient's epilepsy never involved
gelastic seizures.
Although the exact brain mechanisms are not fully understood, this remarkable
case provides evidence of the way cognitive components of humor can be dissociated
from the emotional and motor components of mirth and laughter. In our normal expe-
rience, higher-level cognitive processes involved in the perception of humorous
incongruity cause stimulation of the limbic and brainstem regions involved in the
experience of mirth and production of laughter, but when those same mirthful feel-
ings and laughter behaviors are triggered artificially with an electrical probe, the brain
generates cognitive-perceptual incongruities to try to account for these emotional
experiences.
Based on evidence from cases of pathological laughter, electrical brain stimula-
tion, and animal studies, neuroscientists are beginning to piece together the circuits
of the brain that are involved in the positive emotion of mirth and the production
of laughter, although many of the details are still unknown (Arroyo et al., 1993;
MacLean, 1987; Parvizi et al., 2001; Wild et al., 2003). As with other emotional
systems (Panksepp, 1998), the structures and systems underlying laughter and mirth
are distributed throughout the brain, including regions in the neocortex, basal ganglia,
diencephalon, limbic system, and brainstem.
Parvizi and colleagues (2001) distinguished between emotion induction and
emotion effector sites involved in mirth and laughter. Normal emotional laughter is
initiated by perceptions of humorous incongruity or the recall of humorous memo-
ries, involving association areas of the cerebral cortex. These activate various emotion
induction sites located in the telencephalon (cerebral cortex and limbic system), which
TICKLING AS A STIMULUS FOR LAUGHTER
are involved in "turning on" the emotion of mirth, and likely include areas of the ven-
tromedial prefrontal cortex, basal temporal cortex, anterior cingulate cortex, amyg-
dala, and ventral striatum (part of the basal ganglia). I will discuss these brain bases
of cognitive and emotional aspects of humor in more detail in a later section describ-
ing neuroimaging studies.
When activated, the induction sites work on emotion effector (expression) sites,
including the motor and premotor areas of the cerebral cortex (initiating facial and
bodily movements), the hypothalamus (subserving autonomic responses such as
increased heart rate and flushing), thalamus, periaqueductal gray matter, reticular for-
mation, cranial nerve nuclei (controlling facial, laryngeal, and respiratory actions), and
parts of the brainstem, all of which are involved in smiling and laughter as the expres-
sion of mirth. Most authors agree that there is likely a final common pathway for
laughter located in the brainstem (possibly in the dorsal area of the pons) that coor-
dinates the respiratory, laryngeal, and facial components of laughter (Wild et al.,
2003). Laughter is triggered at this site by input from the various effector sites, and
signals are sent out from here to the cranial nerves to activate the relevant muscles of
the body.
In addition to excitatory input triggering laughter, inhibitory signals arriving in
the brainstem from various higher centers in the brain serve to inhibit inappropriate
laughter. Most researchers believe that the "forced laughter" type of pathological
laughter described earlier is due to damage involving the corticobulbar tract, a motor
pathway originating in the frontal cortex and terminating in cranial motor nuclei in
the pons and medulla, which results in a failure of these laughter-inhibition mecha-
nisms (Mendez, Nakawatase, and Brown, 1999). Parvizi and colleagues (2001) have
also hypothesized a possible role of the cerebellum in modulating the intensity and
duration of laughter. According to this view, the cerebellum receives information con-
cerning the current social-emotional context from the cortex and telencephalic struc-
tures and feeds this information back to various effector sites.
In this way, laughter may be inhibited or amplified, depending on its appropri-
ateness to the social and emotional situation (e.g., whether one is at a party or a
funeral). However, when a stroke or other disease causes lesions to specific regions of
the cerebellum or to the relevant structures and pathways leading into or out of it,
this modulation does not take place, resulting in pathological laughter occurring in
socially and emotionally inappropriate contexts (Parvizi et al., 2001). In sum, although
further research is needed to clarify the exact brain sites and pathways involved, it is
clear that laughter is a complex activity involving cognition, emotion, and motoric
behavior, and requiring the coordinated activation of a wide range of brain regions,
including parts of the cerebral cortex, the limbic system, and the brainstem.
TICKLING AS A STIMULUS FOR LAUGHTER
Why do we laugh in response to being tickled? Why is it impossible to tickle
oneself? As we have seen, many juvenile animals tickle each other during play,
and tickling frequently stimulates laughter in human children and adults, as well as
6 • THE PS YCHO B IO LOGY OF HUMOR AND LAUGHTER
chimpanzees and other primates, and possibly even rats (Panksepp and Burgdorf,
2000). Provine (2004) suggested that the pleasurable, reciprocal give-and-take of tick-
ling may be viewed as a prototype of mammalian social play. The laughter associated
with tickling appears to be accompanied by a pleasurable feeling of mirth similar to
the emotion accompanying laughter when it is elicited by humor. However, tickling
can also be quite aversive, and it was reportedly even used as a form of torture in
medieval times. The social context is also important: tickling only produces laughter
in a safe and trusting environment (Harris, 1999).
Tickling and its curious relationship to humor and laughter raise a number of
intriguing questions that have been pondered by philosophers since the time of
Socrates and Aristotle. Although the first survey study of tickling and laughter was
conducted more than 100 years ago (Hall and Allin, 1897), more systematic empiri-
cal investigations of tickling have only begun quite recently.
Jaak Panksepp (2000) has argued that the merriment and laughter associated with
tickling involve the same emotional brain regions as humor-elicited laughter. Hence,
he suggested that the study of brain processes involved in tickling-related "laughter"
in rats can tell us a good deal about the neural bases of humor and laughter in humans.
This view is similar to the one proposed much earlier by Charles Darwin (1872), who
suggested that tickling is essentially a humorous experience, eliciting laughter via
the same emotional mechanisms as those involved in humor. In other words, both
humor and tickling elicit the emotion of mirth, which in turn is expressed through
laughter. Since a similar idea was proposed at about the same time by a German
physiologist named Hecker, this view has come to be known as the Darwin-Hecker
Hypothesis.
The current research evidence regarding this hypothesis is somewhat mixed,
however. Alan Fridlund and Jennifer Loftis (1990), at the University of California in
Santa Barbara, found some support for the hypothesis in a questionnaire study that
showed that the more individuals reported being very ticklish, the more they also
reported that they tend to laugh, giggle, and smile in response to jokes and other
forms of humor. Similarly, Christine Harris and Nicholas Christenfeld (1997), at the
University of California in San Diego, found a positive correlation between the degree
to which participants were actually observed to laugh and smile while they were being
tickled in the laboratory, and how much they laughed in response to a comedy film.
Both these studies indicate that people who are more ticklish also tend to laugh more
in response to humor, suggesting a close relationship between tickling and humor as
elicitors of laughter, and thus providing support for the Darwin-Hecker Hypothesis.
However, a second part of the study by Harris and Christenfeld failed to support
the prediction that tickling and humor would have a "warm-up effect" on each other.
Participants were no more likely to laugh in response to being tickled after having
seen a comedy film than after watching a nonhumorous control film. Similarly, par-
ticipants laughed the same amount in response to a comedy film regardless of whether
or not they had previously been tickled. These results appear to cast doubt on the
idea that tickling and laughter both elicit the same positive emotion of mirth. If this
were the case, then when this emotion is elicited by means of tickling, it should sub-
TICKLING AS A STIMULUS FOR LAUGHTER
sequently lead to greater laughter in response to humor, and vice versa. The authors
concluded that, although there seem to be relatively stable individual differences in
people's threshold for laughter regardless of whether it occurs in response to tickling
or to humor, the two types of laughter do not share a common emotional basis.
A more recent experiment by Christine Harris and Nancy Alvarado (2005) casts
further doubt on the Darwin-Hecker Hypothesis. They used the FAGS to analyze the
facial expressions of participants who were laughing and smiling while being tickled,
and compared them with facial expressions of the same individuals while listening to
a comedy audiotape and while experiencing the pain of having their hand immersed
in ice-cold water. Both tickling and comedy were associated with Duchenne smiles
and laughter, whereas these expressions did not occur during pain. However, tickling
was also associated with a greater proportion of non-Duchenne smiles along with a
number of facial movements indicating negative emotions and distress, which were
not seen in the comedy condition but were evident in the pain condition. The par-
ticipants also reported lower levels of amusement and higher levels of unpleasant feel-
ings, anxiety, and embarrassment in the tickling condition compared to the comedy
condition. Furthermore, Duchenne smiles were correlated with self-reported unpleas-
ant feelings as well as positive feelings in the tickling condition, but only with posi-
tive feelings in the comedy condition. Overall, these results suggested that the
laughter elicited by tickling is not as purely pleasant and enjoyable as that elicited by
humor.
The results of the latter two studies cast doubt on the Darwin-Hecker Hypoth-
esis that humor and tickling both produce the same emotion of mirth, which is
expressed through laughter. The authors suggested that, whereas humor-elicited
laughter is mediated by a pleasant emotional state, laughter in response to tickling is
a more reflexlike, nonemotional response. If these conclusions are correct, then they
cast doubt on views that posit a close connection among tickling, mirth, and humor,
including Panksepp's (2000) suggestion that tickling-elicited "laughter" in rats can be
used as an animal model to study mirth. This issue requires further investigation,
perhaps using brain-imaging techniques to compare the brain areas activated by
tickling and humor.
Why are we unable to tickle ourselves? Since the same cutaneous stimulation is
experienced very differently depending on whether it is produced by the self or by
another person, there must be some mechanism whereby the brain distinguishes
between these two sources of stimulation, canceling the ticklish effect when it is self-
produced. As Provine (2004) noted, in the absence of such a mechanism, people might
be constantly tickling themselves accidentally! One study used fMRI to examine dif-
ferences in brain activity when participants tickled themselves on the hand compared
to when the tickling was done by an experimenter (Blakemore, Wolpert, and Frith,
1998). The results showed lower activity in the cerebellum when the tickling was self-
produced rather than externally produced, suggesting that the differentiation may take
place in this structure of the hindbrain. As we saw earlier, the cerebellum has also
been implicated in the modulation of laughter based on information about the social
context (Parvizi et al., 2001).
6 • THE PSYCHOBIOLOGY OF HUMOR AND LAUGHTER
Although we cannot tickle ourselves, there is some evidence that it may be pos-
sible to be tickled by a nonhuman machine. Harris and Christenfeld (1999) led blind-
folded participants to believe that they would be tickled either by a "tickle machine"
or by a human hand, although in both conditions they were actually tickled in the
same way by a research assistant. The results showed that the subjects laughed just as
much when they believed they were being tickled by a machine as when they thought
they were being tickled by a person. Thus, laughter elicited by tickling does not seem
to be dependent on the belief that it is being done by a human being.
Although this research has begun to address the interesting phenomena of
tickling and laughter, there are still many questions that await further investigation.
In particular, further study of the brain areas involved in tickling versus humor
should help to answer the question of whether tickling elicits the same pleasurable
emotion as that produced by humor (as suggested by Panksepp, 2000), or whether it
is emotionally quite distinct from humor (as suggested by Harris, 1999). Further
investigations may also provide some clues to the evolutionary functions of ticklish
laughter. Did ticklishness evolve (as some theorists have suggested) as a means of
motivating individuals to develop combat skills to protect certain vulnerable areas of
the body from attack (Gregory, 1924; Harris, 1999)? Or is it a way of facilitating social
bonding in the context of joyful play, as others have proposed (Panksepp, 2000;
Provine, 2004)?
THE NEURAL BASIS OF COGNITIVE PROCESSES IN HUMOR
So far in this chapter, I have been focusing particularly on laughter and the
emotion of mirth that it expresses. In this section I will turn to research on the neural
underpinnings of the cognitive component of humor. If we think of the cognitive
processes involved in humor (discussed in Chapter 4) as the "software" or "mental
programs," here I am discussing the "hardware," the brain structures and circuits in
which these programs "run." Our understanding of the brain bases of humor comes
from several lines of research, including neuropsychological studies of deficits in
humor comprehension observed in patients with brain damage, EEG studies of brain-
wave activity during humor processing in normal individuals, and, more recently,
neuroimaging studies using fMRI to identify the brain regions that are activated when
people are exposed to humorous stimuli.
Humor and Brain Injury
Clinical observations of patients with right hemisphere damage (RHD) resulting
from strokes or other injury to the brain have long suggested that the right hemi-
sphere likely plays an important role in the processing of humor. Although these
patients typically have normal linguistic abilities, they often (but not always) display
marked changes in their personality, engaging in socially inappropriate behavior,
making humorous but often crude or offensive comments, and laughing inappropri-
THE NEURAL BASIS OF COGNITIVE PROCESSES IN HUMOR
ately (Brownell and Gardner, 1988). They are also often impaired in understanding
the discourse and behavior of others, failing to understand jokes told by other people,
and missing the main point of a story. Although they understand the details of a story,
they seem to be unable to piece them together into a coherent interpretation. In addi-
tion, they often have difficulty extracting inferences and nuances from communica-
tion, misunderstanding sarcasm and indirect requests.
In contrast, patients with unilateral left hemisphere damage (LHD) typically do
not show the same personality changes and inappropriate social behavior. Although
they are often aphasic (i.e., they have marked language impairment due to the fact
that language functions are located in the left hemisphere in right-handed people),
they typically display a normal level of social awareness and understanding. In addi-
tion, to the extent allowed by their linguistic impairments, they are usually able to
extract the main point of a story or conversation, to draw inferences, and to combine
elements of a story into a coherent whole. These clinical observations suggest that
RHD patients may have particular difficulty in understanding and appreciating at least
some forms of humor.
Amy Bihrle and her colleagues at the Boston University School of Medicine con-
ducted a study in which they compared RHD and LHD patients in their ability to
comprehend humor (Bihrle, Brownell, and Powelson, 1986). Due to the language
impairments common in LHD patients, it was important to use nonverbal humor
stimuli to ensure that any differences between the groups were not simply due to dif-
ferences in language abilities. Accordingly, the humor stimuli used in the experiment
were a series of captionless comic strips, each containing four picture panels forming
a narrative, with the final picture introducing a humorous ending much like the punch
line of a verbal joke. The participants were presented with the first three panels of
each comic strip and were instructed to select which of two alternative pictures would
make the funniest ending. In each case, one of the alternatives was the original,
humorous "punch line" picture, whereas the other (less humorous) alternative varied
in the degree to which it contained incongruity (surprising elements) and resolution
(coherence with the preceding narrative). By examining the types of alternatives that
were chosen incorrectly by the participants, the researchers could identify particular
components of humor comprehension with which they had difficulties.
Overall, RHD patients performed significantly more poorly than did LHD
patients in selecting the correct joke ending, suggesting a particularly important role
of the right hemisphere in humor comprehension. More specifically, RHD patients
were found to be much more likely than LHD patients to select incorrect endings
that contained an incongruous non sequitur but that did not show coherence with the
earlier part of the narrative. In other words, these incorrect endings contained incon-
gruity without resolution. For example, instead of the correct, funny ending, they
would often select a slapstick ending (e.g., a picture of someone slipping on a banana
peel) that did not have any relevance to the story. Thus, they seemed to be aware that
humor involves some sort of incongruity (and often some element of aggression), and
were able to recognize the presence of incongruity, but they had difficulty identify-
ing which incongruous endings made most sense in relation to the rest of the story.
6 • THE PSYCHOBIOLOGY OF HUMOR AND LAUGHTER
This lack of relevance or coherence may account for the clinical observation that
RHD patients often engage in silly, socially inappropriate forms of humor (i.e., humor
that is not relevant to the social situation). On the other hand, when LHD patients
made errors, they were more likely than RHD patients to choose incorrect
endings that did not contain any incongruity, but simply provided an ordinary,
unsurprising completion to the story. Thus, they had some difficulty in recognizing
incongruity.
In a second part of their study, which examined only the RHD patients, Bihrle
and her colleagues (1986) employed a similar methodology using verbal jokes instead
of visual cartoons as humor stimuli, to determine whether a similar pattern of deficits
would be found with verbal humor. The results closely replicated the findings with
the nonverbal humor, with RHD patients frequently selecting incorrect joke punch
lines that contained incongruity (often of a slapstick nature) but no coherence or res-
olution. Similar findings were also obtained in other studies by Brownell et al. (1983)
and by Wapner et al. (1981). Overall, these results suggested that the left hemisphere
of the brain plays a role in perceiving incongruity, whereas the right hemisphere
is important for making coherent sense of (i.e., resolving) the incongruity within
the social context (Bihrle, Brownell, and Gardner, 1988; Gillikin and Derks, 1991;
McGhee, 1983b).
More recent research suggests that part of the difficulty of RHD patients in com-
prehending humor may have to do with deficits in "theory of mind," which is the
ability to attribute beliefs and intentions to other people in order to explain or predict
their behavior (Brownell and Stringfellow, 2000). Francesca Happe, Hiram Brownell,
and Ellen Winner (1999) tested humor comprehension in groups of RHD and LHD
patients and non-brain-damaged control participants using nonverbal cartoons that
either did or did not require a sophisticated theory of mind in order to understand
and appreciate the humor fully. In the theory of mind cartoons, the humor depended
on what a character mistakenly thought or did not know. For example, in one cartoon
a man is playing a guitar and singing on a balcony of a high-rise apartment building,
while two women, one on the balcony above him and the other on the balcony below,
are listening with rapt attention, each apparently thinking that he is serenading her.
To understand the joke, one must be able to recognize differences in the knowledge
of each of the characters.
Participants were presented with pairs of cartoons, each pair comprising an orig-
inal humorous cartoon and a modified version in which the key humorous element
was replaced, and were asked to choose which of the two was funnier. The results
indicated that RHD patients, as compared with both the LHD patients and normal
control subjects, showed significantly more errors in identifying the humorous car-
toons involving theory of mind, but did not differ in their ability to identify the car-
toons that did not require theory of mind. In contrast, LHD patients did not differ
from non-brain-damaged controls on either type of cartoon.
Brownell and Stringfellow (2000) suggested that deficits in theory of mind, which
have also been found in RHD patients in other research, may account for the pattern
of humor comprehension deficits that were found in these patients in previous
THE NEURAL BASIS OF COGNITIVE PROCESSES IN HUMOR
research. In particular, they speculated that the resolution of humor (i.e., the ability
to "make sense" of incongruity), which has been found to be the aspect of humor in
which RHD patients have particular difficulty, often depends on a theory of mind.
Impairments in theory of mind, which is very important for appropriate social and
emotional functioning, may also help to account for the socially inappropriate forms
of humor often observed in these patients. Further research is needed to explore these
hypotheses more fully (see also Lyons and Fitzgerald, 2004, for a discussion of humor
in autism and Asperger syndrome, which are thought to involve deficits in theory of
mind).
Although previous research indicated an important role of the right hemisphere
in humor comprehension, a study by Prathiba Shammi and Donald Stuss (1999), at
the University of Toronto, indicated that it is the right frontal lobe in particular that
seems to be most important. They tested patients with single focal brain damage
restricted to the frontal (right, left, or bilateral) or nonfrontal (right or left) brain
regions as well as age-matched normal controls. The participants were given several
humor tests to assess various aspects of humor comprehension and appreciation,
including both verbal and nonverbal forms of humor. In general, similar deficits in
humor comprehension that were previously found in RHD patients were found in
this study, but only for patients with right frontal lobe damage. In addition, the
patients with right frontal lesions reacted with less emotional responsiveness (smiling
and laughter) to all the humorous materials as compared to those with lesions in other
brain areas.
The authors noted that the frontal lobes, and particularly the right frontal lobe,
appear to be especially involved in the integration of cognition and emotion, due to
their connections to the limbic system as well as many other cortical regions. In addi-
tion to the integration of cognition and emotion, the frontal lobes have been shown
to play a crucial role in a number of cognitive functions that are likely important for
humor comprehension, including narrative discourse, abstract and nonliteral inter-
pretation, working memory, problem solving, and indirect forms of communication
such as irony, affective intonation, and sarcasm.
EEC Studies
In addition to studying deficits in humor comprehension in patients with brain
damage, researchers have investigated the brain areas involved in humor in healthy
subjects using EEG techniques, in which the electrical activity of the brain is meas-
ured by means of electrodes attached to the scalp. To determine whether the left or
right hemisphere is more active in humor, Sven Svebak (1982), then at the Univer-
sity of Bergen in Norway, measured the amount of discordant alpha wave activity
occurring at sites on the right and left occipital lobes of subjects while they watched
a comedy film. Those who laughed while watching the film (and therefore presum-
ably found it highly amusing) showed less discordant right-left alpha activity than did
those who did not laugh, suggesting coordinated activity of both hemispheres during
mirth.
6 • THE PSYCHOBIOLOGY OF HUMOR AND LAUGHTER
To test whether this finding was simply due to respiratory effects of laughter
(perhaps causing differences in blood oxygen levels), a second study included condi-
tions in which subjects were instructed to hyperventilate and hypoventilate, as well as
humorous and nonhumorous film conditions. The results replicated the first study
and also demonstrated that the greater concordance in alpha activity across the hemi-
spheres associated with laughter was not simply caused by laughter-related changes
in respiration. Overall, then, these studies suggested that both hemispheres of the
brain work together in a coordinated manner during humor and mirth rather than
one hemisphere being more active than the other.
In another EEG study of humor, Peter Derks and colleagues, at the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration, examined event-related potentials (ERPs)
associated with joke comprehension and appreciation (Derks et al., 1997). ERPs are
spikes in positively or negatively polarized brain wave activity occurring at very brief
intervals after an event, and have been found to indicate different types of informa-
tion processing. Using 2 1 EEG electrodes at various locations on the scalp, brain wave
activity was monitored while participants were presented with a series of verbal jokes
on a computer screen. Electromyographic (EMG) recordings were also taken on the
zygomatic muscle of the face to detect the presence or absence of smiling and laugh-
ter, indicating whether or not each joke was found amusing by the subject.
The results showed that all of the jokes, regardless of whether or not smiling or
laughter occurred, produced an increase in positive polarization of brain waves
with peak amplitude about 300 milliseconds (P300) following presentation of the
punch line. In addition, for the jokes that were associated with zygomatic muscle
activity, this was followed by a negative polarization with peak amplitude at about
400 milliseconds (N400). In contrast, this N400 wave did not occur after jokes that
did not elicit zygomatic activity, and were therefore presumably not found to be
amusing.
Previous research has shown that P300 waves indicate the cognitive activity of
categorization, whereas N400 waves occur when categorization is disrupted due to an
incongruous or unexpected element, resulting in an extension of the categorization
process. In terms of the schema concepts discussed in Chapter 4, P300 following a
joke can be viewed as indicating the activation of a schema to make sense of the infor-
mation in the joke, whereas N400 indicates the disruption of this process and
the search for an alternative schema due to the detection of an incongruity ("frame-
shifting"). The fact that the N400 wave only occurred with jokes that were found to
be amusing suggests that these were the jokes that triggered the activation of an alter-
nate schema (corresponding to the "resolution" stage in two-stage theories of humor).
As noted in Chapter 4, the simultaneous activation of two or more incompatible
schemas seems to be the hallmark of humor. Thus, this study provided EEG evidence
that corresponds quite well to the schema-based cognitive research discussed previ-
ously. In addition, consistent with the findings of Svebak (1982), this study found
similar levels of activity in both hemispheres of the brain, suggesting that both hemi-
spheres are involved in humor processing.
THE NEURAL BASIS OF COGNITIVE PROCESSES IN HUMOR 1{
A more recent EEG study by Seana Coulson and Marta Kutas (2001), at the Uni-
versity of California at San Diego, found the N400 wave following the presentation
of humorous sentences but not nonhumorous sentences, replicating the finding of
Derks and colleagues (although the results were somewhat less consistent). Although
this study also found evidence of a positively polarized wave, this occurred at 500 to
700 milliseconds, considerably later than that observed in the study by Derks and col-
leagues. In addition, subjects who showed a high level of joke comprehension revealed
simultaneous positive and negative waves in different brain regions during this time
period.
These authors interpreted the positive polarities as reflecting the surprise com-
ponent of joke processing and the negative polarities as indicating the frame-shifting
needed to reestablish coherence. They argued that the fact that these occurred during
the same time period indicates that the surprise and coherence components of humor
comprehension occur simultaneously in different brain regions, rather than following
the temporally sequential pattern suggested by two-stage incongruity-resolution
models of humor (e.g., Suls, 1972). In summary, although there were some differences
between these two studies, both seem to provide evidence of positive and negative
polarity ERPs corresponding to incongruity and resolution components of humor
comprehension.
Brain-Imaging Studies
Recent advances in neuroimaging techniques such as fMRI have enabled
researchers to study the brain regions involved in a wide range of psychological
processes in normal individuals. fMRI uses high-powered, rapidly oscillating magnetic
fields to scan the brain and detect small changes in blood oxygenation levels (which
are indicative of changes in neuronal activity) in specific regions of the brain. Several
recent studies have employed this method to investigate humor. These investigations
have begun to map out the areas in the cortex involved in the cognitive comprehen-
sion of humor as well as subcortical areas in the limbic system underlying the emo-
tional response of mirth.
In a study conducted at University College London, MRI was used to scan the
brains of participants while they listened to riddles containing either phonological
jokes (simple puns based on word sounds) or semantic jokes (containing more complex
incongruities based on semantic meaning), as well as a set of nonhumorous control
riddles (Goel and Dolan, 2001). After each item, the subjects were instructed to indi-
cate, by pressing a key, whether or not they found it amusing, and after the scan they
reviewed the jokes and rated them for funniness. Analyses of the brain areas that were
differentially activated by the two different types of jokes indicated that somewhat dif-
ferent networks were involved. In particular, the semantic jokes induced greater acti-
vation in regions of both the left and right temporal lobes that are involved in semantic
processing of language. In contrast, the phonological jokes induced greater activation
in areas of the left frontal lobe that have been implicated in the processing of speech
6 • THE PSYCHOBIOLOGY OF HUMOR AND LAUGHTER
sounds, which have particular relevance in puns. Thus, different brain areas appear
to be involved in the cognitive processing of different types of humor.
Besides these cognitive processes, this study also examined emotional components
of humor by identifying brain areas that were differentially activated in response to
jokes that were rated as funny, as compared to those rated as unfunny. Funniness
ratings presumably reflect the degree to which each stimulus elicited mirth in the par-
ticipants. These analyses revealed that, regardless of joke type, funnier jokes were
associated with significantly greater activation of the medial ventral prefrontal cortex,
an area at the front of the brain with connections to the limbic system that plays an
important role in integrating cognitive and emotional processes. This was one of the
areas that was also found to be activated during emotional, as opposed to voluntary,
laughter in the study by Iwase and colleagues (2002) discussed previously.
Another fMRI study, conducted at Stanford University, found further evidence
for the involvement of emotion-related brain centers in humor, particularly the well-
known mesolimbic reward centers (Mobbs et al., 2003). While being scanned in an
MRI machine, participants viewed, in random order, 42 humorous cartoons and 42
nonhumorous control cartoons in which the humorous elements had been removed.
The data were analyzed to identify the brain regions that were differentially activated
in response to humorous versus nonhumorous cartoons. Several of the regions that
showed greater activation to humorous cartoons were in the left hemisphere of the
cerebral cortex, presumably involving cognitive processing of humorous information.
These included: (1) an area at the junction of the left temporal and occipital lobes
(which was suggested by the authors to be important in the perception of incongru-
ous or surprising elements of humor); (2) an area of the left frontal lobe including
Broca's area (which is involved in semantic processing and integrating language and
long-term memory, and may therefore be important for the perception of coherence
or resolution of incongruity); and (3) the supplementary motor area of the left frontal
lobe (presumably reflecting motor aspects of expressive smiling and laughter). The
latter area is the one found by Fried and colleagues (1998) to produce mirthful laugh-
ter when electrically stimulated during surgery.
In addition to these cortical areas, this study found that humorous as compared
to nonhumorous cartoons also produced significantly greater activation in several sub-
cortical regions, including the anterior thalamus, ventral striatum, nucleus accumbens,
ventral tegmental area, hypothalamus, and amygdala (Figure 5). These regions form
the core of the so-called mesolimbic reward network, a well-researched system that
employs dopamine as the major neurotransmitter, and which is implicated in a variety
of pleasurable, emotionally rewarding activities, including ingestion of mood-altering
drugs like heroin and alcohol, eating, sexual activity, listening to enjoyable music,
looking at photographs of attractive faces, and playing video games (for a review, see
Schultz, 2002). Thus, at a neurological level, the positive emotion elicited by humor
appears to be closely related to the pleasurable feelings associated with these other
activities. Of particular interest was the finding of a significant positive correlation
between the funniness ratings of individual cartoons and the degree of activation of
the nucleus accumbens, which has consistently been shown to be important in psy-
THE NEURAL BASIS OF COGNITIVE PROCESSES IN HUMOR
18
Supplementary
Motor Area
Cingulate
Cortex
Frontal
Lobe
Prefrontal
Cortex
Basal
Ganglia
Nucleus
Accumbens
Amygdala
Hypothalamus
Parietal
Lobe
Occipital
Lobe
Thalamus
Rons
Cerebellum
Ventral
Tegmental
Area
FIGURE 5 Brain regions involved in cognitive and emotional components of humor and
laughter.
chologically and pharmacologically driven rewards, suggesting that this structure is
particularly important in the pleasurable emotion associated with humor.
These patterns of cortical and subcortical regions activated by humorous versus
nonhumorous cartoons were replicated in three subsequent investigations, two by the
same team of researchers at Stanford University (Azim et al., 2005; Mobbs et al.,
2005), and one by researchers at the California Institute of Technology (K. K. Watson,
Matthews, and Allman, in press). One of these studies also examined sex differences
in brain responses to humor (Azim et al., 2005). Although women and men showed
similar overall patterns of brain activity, women revealed greater activation in the left
prefrontal cortex and in the mesolimbic regions including the nucleus accumbens,
suggesting that they enjoyed the cartoons more. Another of these studies examined
correlations between personality traits and brain activation in response to humor
(Mobbs et al., 2005). Participants with lower scores on a measure of neuroticism were
found to have higher levels of activation in the mesolimbic reward circuitry, includ-
ing the nucleus accumbens, suggesting that humor induces a stronger pleasure
response in more emotionally stable individuals. There was also greater humor-related
brain activation in extraverted as compared to introverted participants, indicating a
greater responsiveness to humor in these individuals as well. These findings suggest
a biological basis to correlations that have been found between these personality traits
and various measures of sense of humor, which I will discuss in greater detail in
Chapter 7.
J4 6 • THE PSYCHOBIOLOGY OF HUMOR AND LAUGHTER
Taken together, these brain-imaging studies provide intriguing evidence con-
cerning the regions of the cerebral cortex that are involved in the cognitive process-
ing of various types of humor, as well as the cortical and subcortical (limbic) regions
mediating the pleasurable emotion of mirth that is induced by the perception of
humor. Although the studies of humor in patients with brain lesions seem to suggest
a particularly important role of the right hemisphere, the brain-imaging research (like
the EEG studies) indicates that humor involves coordinated activities of many regions
in both hemispheres. As noted earlier, the brain lesion findings implicating right hemi-
sphere involvement in humor may reflect a particular role of that hemisphere in social
comprehension skills, such as theory of mind, which are important for understanding
humor within its social context. The brain-imaging studies suggest that the left hemi-
sphere is also very much involved in processing other aspects of humor.
In addition to research investigating brain regions involved in the comprehen-
sion and enjoyment of jokes, some fMRI studies have looked at the brain areas that
are activated by the sound of laughter. As we saw in the Chapter 5, Provine (2000)
suggested that the contagiousness of laughter might be due to a hypothetical center
in the brain that responds selectively to the distinct sounds of laughter, inducing feel-
ings of mirth and causing the listener to laugh in turn. Gervais and Wilson (2005)
suggested that this laughter-response center may consist of specialized mirror
neurons, a type of neuron that is active not only when the individual is performing a
particular behavior but also when observing someone else perform the same behav-
ior (Rizzolatti and Craighero, 2004). Research has shown that certain mirror neurons
also respond to the perception of emotions in others, inducing an empathic response
in the observer.
An fMRI study by Kerstin Sander and Henning Scheich (2001) found that lis-
tening both to laughter and to crying elicited strong activation in the amygdala, part
of the limbic system which, as we have seen, is an important center of emotion pro-
cessing that is activated by humor. A more recent fMRI investigation compared the
brain areas that were active when participants listened either to laughter, speech, or
nonvocal sounds (M. Meyer et al., 2005). While both speech and laughter produced
activation in auditory processing regions of the temporal lobes, the activation was
stronger in the right hemisphere with laughter and in the left hemisphere with speech.
Thus, the right hemisphere may be more strongly involved in responses to laughter
if not to humor. This study also found that hearing laughter activated a section of the
motor area in the right frontal lobe that has previously been implicated in the vocal
expression of laughter, providing further evidence for a close link between laughter
reception and expression mechanisms. Further research is needed to determine
whether any of these areas can be identified as the laughter-mirroring center hypoth-
esized by Provine (2000) and by Gervais and Wilson (2005).
Although only a small number of fMRI investigations of humor and laughter have
been conducted as yet, they are beginning to provide intriguing information about
how the brain responds to humor. It is important to note, though, that the confined
space of an MRI machine does not permit researchers to study events in the brain
associated with the creation and perception of spontaneous forms of humor occur-
EVOLUTIONARY THEORIES OF HUMOR AND LAUGHTER 18!
ring in naturalistic social interactions, and this research is therefore limited to the
comprehension and enjoyment of jokes and cartoons and responses to recorded laugh-
ter. There are also some discrepancies in findings across these studies, likely due to
differences in the types of humor stimuli and experimental paradigms that were used.
Despite the limitations of the methodology, there is still much more to learn with this
approach, and this will likely continue to be an exciting area of research in coming
years.
EVOLUTIONARY THEORIES OF HUMOR AND LAUGHTER
Several lines of evidence indicate that humor, mirth, and laughter are likely a
product of natural selection (Gervais and Wilson, 2005; Weisfeld, 1993). Humor and
laughter are universal in the human species, and laughter as an expression of mirth
emerges early in life. Infants begin to laugh in response to social stimuli by around
four months of age, and cases of gelastic epilepsy in newborns indicate that the mech-
anisms for laughter are present at birth (Sher and Brown, 1976). Additional evidence
that laughter is an innate behavior pattern, rather than being learned through imita-
tion, comes from the fact that children who are born blind and deaf laugh normally
(Goodenough, 1932). As we have seen, the evidence from studies of pathological
laughter, brain lesion studies, and brain-imaging research all suggest that there are
specific neural circuits for humor, mirth, and laughter. Moreover, the evidence of
laughter and play-related positive emotion in other animals further attests to their
evolutionary origins.
The animal research discussed earlier indicates that humor and laughter in
humans likely originated in social play. Thus, the adaptive functions of humor are
likely closely linked to the functions of play more generally. Many theorists have sug-
gested that the evolutionary benefits of play have to do with facilitating the develop-
ment of various adaptive skills (Bateson, 2005; Panksepp, 1998). For example, some
have suggested that play helps individuals learn competitive and noncompetitive social
skills, such as behaviors that facilitate social bonding and cooperation or those that
promote social rank, leadership, and communication. Others have suggested nonso-
cial functions of play, such as increasing physical fitness, cognitive abilities, and cre-
ativity (P. K. Smith, 1982). Panksepp (1998) summarized research showing that adult
rats that have been deprived of play during the juvenile period, as compared to those
that have abundant play experience, are less effective in competitive encounters, are
less valued as social partners by others, are more fearful in social situations, and have
decrements in certain problem-solving abilities.
With the evolution of an enlarged cerebral cortex and increased capacity for lan-
guage, abstract thinking, self-awareness, theory of mind, and so on, humans have
extended the functions of play, mirth, and laughter by developing the ability to play
with ideas, words, and alternative realities by means of the ludic mental activity of
humor (Caron, 2002). Glenn Weisfeld (1993) proposed an evolutionary theory of the
adaptive functions of humor that emphasizes its continuity with play. Just as physical
6 •THEPSYCHOBIOLOGYOFHUMORANDLAUGHTER
play in animals seems to provide them the opportunity to practice competitive and
noncompetitive social and physical survival skills in a nonthreatening context, humor,
in this theory, is a means for humans to playfully practice important skills relating to
social cognition and interpersonal behavior. Through humorous anecdotes, teasing,
joking, and wordplay, humans are able to safely probe sensitive social issues concern-
ing such topics as sexuality, aggression, and social status; engage in playful competi-
tion; explore incongruous counterexamples, and so on. Thus, the adaptive functions
of humor as playful cognitive activity in a social context appear to be an extension of
the original functions of mammalian physical play into the realm of cognition.
Besides these benefits of the cognitive aspects of humor, part of its adaptive func-
tion may have to do with the positive emotion associated with it. According to Barbara
Fredrickson's (2001) Broaden-and-Build Theory, the adaptive functions of positive
emotions in general, including the humor-related emotion of mirth, is to broaden the
scope of the individual's focus of attention, allowing for more creative problem solving
and an increased range of behavioral response options, and to build physical, intellec-
tual, and social resources that are available to the individual for dealing with life's chal-
lenges. Evidence in support of this theory has been provided by recent research
conducted by Fredrickson and her colleagues on mirth and other positive emotions
(e.g., Fredrickson and Branigan, 2005; Fredrickson et al., 2000). These ideas are also
consistent with the suggestion made by Michelle Shiota and her colleagues (2004)
that positive emotions, including humor-related mirth, play an important role in the
regulation of interpersonal relationships.
Although human laughter appears to have originated in play, it has evidently
undergone considerable evolutionary change since we diverged from our nearest
living relative, the chimpanzee, some 6 million years ago. As noted earlier, human
laughter sounds quite different from that of chimpanzees and other primates, and is
based on a different respiratory pattern. Thus, there appears to have been some adap-
tive pressure on the formal characteristics of laughter in the evolutionary history of
our species. Matthew Gervais and David Wilson (2005) refer to these modifications
as a process of ritualization, whereby "a signal changes in structure so that it is more
prominent and unmistakable, and thus more readily perceptible" (p. 415).
When did this distinctively human form of laughter evolve? Robert Provine
(2000) argued that the divergence from apelike to humanlike laughter did not begin
until after the development of bipedalism in our hominid ancestors (presumably the
australopithecines) some 4 million years ago, since walking on two legs freed the thorax
from the mechanical constraints of quadrupedal locomotion and allowed for the
greater control over respiration that is needed for human laughter (as well as lan-
guage). In turn, Gervais and Wilson (2005) suggested that the human form of laugh-
ter was likely fully developed before the evolution of language (which is thought to
have begun with Homo habilis around 2 million years ago), since brain studies indicate
that laughter originates in subcortical, limbic, and brainstem areas shared with other
primates, and not in the more recently evolved neocortical areas in which language
is based. If this reasoning is correct, laughter must have taken its contemporary human
form sometime between 2 and 4 million years ago.
EVOLUTIONARY THEORIES OF HUMOR AND LAUGHTER 18'
Why did laughter in humans become ritualized in this way? Gervais and Wilson
(2005) proposed a theory drawing on contemporary views of laughter as an emotion-
induction mechanism. In particular, they suggested that the changes that occurred in
laughter were ones that made it increasingly effective at inducing the play-related pos-
itive emotion of mirth in other members of a group, and thereby recruiting them to
engage in social play. In turn, social play and the positive emotion associated with it
presumably provided the various adaptive benefits discussed earlier. Individuals who
were more adept at becoming playful during times of safety and eliciting a playful
state in others through laughter would have benefited from increased fitness within
the group. In addition, groups composed of members who more frequently engaged
in laughter would have a competitive advantage over other groups. (For an alterna-
tive, "selfish gene" theory of the evolution of laughter, see Owren and Bachorowski,
2001.)
Besides the play-related functions of humor, mirth, and laughter, over the course
of human evolution humor seems to have been adapted for a number of additional
functions by means of co-optation. A number of such additional functions have been
proposed by various theorists (see Vaid, 1999, for a review of evolutionary theories of
humor). For example, as we saw in Chapter 5, Mulkay (1988) suggested that humor
was co-opted as a mode of interpersonal communication. Along the same line, Richard
Alexander (1986) proposed an evolutionary theory of humor that emphasizes its
aggressive as well as its bonding aspects. Using the concepts of ostracism and indi-
rect reciprocity, he suggested that humor evolved as a way of favorably manipulating
one's status in a social group to improve one's access to resources for reproductive
success. Jokes and other disparaging forms of humor that make fun of members of an
out-group are a means of lowering their status and ostracizing them, while more affil-
iative forms of humor are a method of enhancing the status and fostering the cohe-
siveness of members of the in-group.
Geoffrey Miller (1997, 2000) has proposed a theory that focuses on the creativ-
ity of humor rather than its aggressiveness, suggesting that sexual selection played a
major role in its evolution. According to this view, a witty sense of humor, like lin-
guistic skills and creativity, is an indicator of superior intellectual aptitude, a geneti-
cally based trait that enhances one's ability to compete successfully for resources.
Thus, humor is a "fitness indicator," a signal for "good genes," increasing the indi-
vidual's perceived desirability as a potential mate. This theory accounts for the well-
replicated finding (discussed in Chapter 5) that a sense of humor is seen by people in
all cultures as one of the most desirable characteristics in a prospective mate, and par-
ticularly in women's choice of a male partner (Feingold, 1992). The preferred selec-
tion of partners with a sense of humor would ensure that, over time, genes involved
in the formation of brain systems underlying humor creation and appreciation would
proliferate in the population.
Some recent studies have investigated hypotheses derived from Miller's sexual
selection theory. Eric Bressler and Sigal Balshine (2006) presented male and female
undergraduates photographs of two individuals (both either male or female) along
with statements that were supposedly written by them. The statements from one of
38 6 • THE PSYCHOBIOLOGY OF HUMOR AND LAUGHTER
each pair always contained humor, and the other did not. The participants were then
asked to rate these individuals on a number of perceived personality traits and to select
the one that was most desirable as a relationship partner. The results revealed that
female subjects preferred the humorous over the nonhumorous male as a potential
partner, whereas no such preference appeared when males were rating females or
when participants of either gender were rating individuals of the same sex. These
results were interpreted as providing support for Miller's theory that a sense of humor
evolved as a means of attracting potential sexual partners, and particularly for males
to attract females.
Although research has shown that both men and women consider a sense of
humor to be a desirable characteristic in a prospective mate (Daniel et al., 1985;
Feingold, 1992), sexual selection theory would suggest that the two sexes may have
somewhat different ideas about what a desirable sense of humor is. Women may think
of a man with a good sense of humor as someone who makes them laugh, whereas
men may think of a woman with a sense of humor as someone who laughs at their
jokes. A recent study by Bressler and colleagues provided some support for this
hypothesis (Bressler, Martin, and Balshine, 2006). When presented with descriptions
of two individuals of the opposite sex and asked to choose which one was more attrac-
tive as a potential romantic partner, women were more likely to choose the one who
produced humor and made them laugh over the one who appreciated their humor,
whereas men were more likely to choose the humor appreciator over the humor
producer.
A number of other evolutionary theories have been proposed, each suggesting
somewhat different adaptive functions for humor. For example, humor and laughter
have been viewed as a "disabling mechanism" that prevents us from doing things that
would be counterproductive (Chafe, 1987), or as a form of "vocal grooming" which,
like physical grooming in primates, facilitates social bonding (Dunbar, 1996). Another
theory views laughter as a "false alarm," signaling to others that a stimulus or event
is unimportant and nonserious (Ramachandran, 1998). Although many of these the-
ories seem quite plausible, there is little research evidence to support most of them.
Like evolutionary psychology in general, evolutionary theories of humor need to
provide testable hypotheses making them potentially falsifiable so that they can be
more than merely "just so" stories (Gould, 2002). In the end, we may never have defin-
itive answers concerning the origins and adaptive functions of humor. Nonetheless,
these sorts of evolutionary theories are useful if they generate interesting new
hypotheses, stimulating new lines of research, and providing a better understanding
of the phenomena.
CONCLUSION
The psychobiological study of humor, mirth, and laughter contributes interest-
ing new perspectives and insights, complementing the findings from other areas of
psychology. The biological approach to humor calls our attention particularly to the
emotional aspects of this phenomenon. The cognitive-perceptual component of
CONCLUSION 189
humor draws on many cortical brain circuits involved in information processing.
When humorous incongruity is perceived, a distinctive emotional state is elicited,
which I have referred to as mirth. Comparative studies of nonhuman animals suggest
that this emotion originates in play, a social activity that apparently serves important
adaptive functions. Recent brain studies, using animal models as well as neuroimag-
ing in humans, are just beginning to unravel the "emotional operating system" of
mirth, the specialized brain structures and circuits that underlie this emotion. These
studies have already implicated the well-known dopaminergic mesolimbic reward
centers, as well as the role of opiates and various neuropeptides. Further research in
this area, part of the growing field of affective neuroscience, will likely yield many
interesting discoveries, not only about the brain circuits, but also the brain biochem-
istry of humor-related mirth and the potential interactions of these biochemicals with
other systems of the body, including the endocrine and immune systems.
The emotion of mirth typically also triggers the expressive behavior of laughter,
which communicates to others the presence of this emotional state in the individual.
Laughter is characterized by a distinctive pattern of vocalizations, respiration, and
facial expression. Although we often view laughter as the "cause" of changes in auto-
nomic arousal and brain biochemistry, it seems more appropriate to view all of these
as effects of the emotion of mirth. Laughter is essentially a social behavior, a fixed
action pattern that serves an interpersonal communication function. It has a conta-
gious effect, as the sound of laughter elicits feelings of mirth in others, causing them
to laugh as well.
The biological approach also draws attention to the evolutionary basis of humor.
A type of play-related laughter occurs in our closest ape relative, the chimpanzee, as
well as other primates, and it has even been suggested that homologues of laughter
may be seen in the play activities of rats, suggesting that the origins of mirth and
laughter may extend to our earliest mammalian ancestors. The play face and related
vocalizations in nonhuman animals signal a distinction between reality and pretense,
seriousness and fun, indicating a rudimentary conception of humor. With the expo-
nential growth in the human cortex, and the associated increase in cognitive abilities
including language, abstract reasoning, self-awareness, and theory of mind, humans
have taken social play to a new level. By playing with language and ideas in the verbal
equivalent of competitive rough-and-tumble play, an activity that we call "humor," we
activate the same emotional brain circuits, autonomic arousal patterns, and behavioral
displays that are involved in actual physical play. Although play is largely a juvenile
activity in most animals, and rough-and-tumble play typically ends with childhood in
humans as well, play in the form of humor continues to be an important activity
throughout adulthood in humans, serving important social functions. By testing
hypotheses derived from various evolutionary theories of humor, research in the field
of evolutionary psychology may help to elucidate its adaptive functions, as well as take
research on humor into interesting new avenues. In sum, while research in the field
of psychobiology has made considerable progress in furthering our understanding of
the origins, nature, and biological bases of humor, mirth, and laughter, this promises
to be an exciting area of further research in the future.
Personality Approaches to the
Sense of Humor
ow would you describe one of your
friends to another person? In addition to physical characteristics such as height and
hair color, you would likely mention various personality traits, describing his or her
level of friendliness, intelligence, competitiveness, or generosity. Chances are that you
would also mention his or her sense of humor, saying something like "She often makes
me laugh," or "He always sees the funny side of things." Thus, sense of humor may
be viewed as a personality trait (or, more accurately, a set of loosely related traits),
referring to consistent tendencies to perceive, enjoy, or create humor in one's daily
life.
Personality has to do with "an individual's habitual way of thinking, feeling, per-
ceiving, and reacting to the world" (Magnavita, 2002, p. 16). Personality traits are
hypothetical constructs that describe the ways people differ from one another and that
enable us to make predictions about how they will behave in various situations.
Although people's behavior is partly influenced by situational factors (you are more
likely to tell jokes at a party than at a funeral, for instance), individuals also display
some degree of consistency across situations (some people are more likely than others
to tell jokes in any particular situation).
A personality trait may be viewed as a dimension along which all people can be
placed, with some falling at the very high or low ends of the scale and others some-
where between the extremes. Personality psychologists seek to identify the various
traits that account for behavioral, cognitive, and affective differences among people,
191
7 • PERSONALITY APPROACHES TO THE SENSE OF HUMOR
to create reliable and valid measures for quantifying these traits, to explore the rela-
tionships among different traits and their ability to predict particular behaviors and
affects, and to investigate the biological, social, and psychological factors that account
for such individual differences.
Among the many traits that they have investigated, sense of humor has long been
a topic of interest to personality psychologists. Several of the most influential early
personality researchers and theorists, including such disparate thinkers as Hans
Eysenck (1942), Raymond Cattell (Cattell and Luborsky, 1947), Gordon Allport
(1961), and Sigmund Freud (1960 [1905]), investigated humor and found a place for
it in their theoretical systems (for a review, see R. A. Martin, 1998). In the past few
decades, the study of sense of humor as a personality trait has continued to be one of
the most active areas of research in the psychology of humor. Researchers have devel-
oped a number of tests for measuring different aspects or components of this
construct, and numerous studies have been conducted to investigate how these
humor-related traits correlate with other personality dimensions and predict relevant
behavior.
A particular interest in much of the recent research has been the role of sense of
humor in mental health and coping with stress. I will discuss the mental health impli-
cations of sense of humor in Chapter 9. In this chapter, I will focus on the concep-
tualization and measurement of individual differences in humor and their association
with other personality dimensions. I will begin by exploring what we mean by sense
of humor, noting that this concept seems to comprise several different dimensions. I
will then discuss various approaches that researchers have taken in defining and mea-
suring this concept and will review research examining relationships between these
different humor measures and other personality traits. These approaches include:
humor appreciation measures, which assess the degree to which individuals enjoy dif-
ferent types of humor; self-report measures of various components of sense of humor;
measures of people's ability to produce humor; and a q-sort technique for assessing
humor styles. I will then discuss factor analytic research examining interrelationships
among these different measurement approaches. Finally, I will review some research
investigating the personality traits of professional comedians.
WHAT IS SENSE OF HUMOR?
As we saw in Chapter 1 , the concept of sense of humor developed in the nine-
teenth century. In its original meaning, it had an aesthetic connotation, referring to
a faculty or capacity for the perception or appreciation of humor, something like a
sense of beauty in art or an ear for music. At that time, the word humor also had a
narrower meaning than it has today, referring to a sympathetic form of amusement
that was linked to pathos, and was distinguished from wit, which was seen as more
aggressive and less socially desirable (Ruch, 1998a; Wickberg, 1998). The sense of
humor, as a character trait relating to this positive form of amusement, therefore also
took on a very socially desirable connotation, and came to be viewed as one of the
WHAT IS SENSE OF HUMOR?
most positive traits a person could have. Over the years, however, the meaning of
humor has broadened to cover all types of mirthful phenomena, and sense of humor has
also been extended to include a much wider range of humor-related traits, while
retaining its very positive connotation. Thus, a sense of humor has become a very
desirable but also a very poorly defined personality characteristic.
Most people think of themselves as having a good sense of humor. As the Amer-
ican essayist Frank Moore Colby wittily observed, "Men will confess to treason,
murder, arson, false teeth, or a wig. How many of them will own up to a lack of
humor?" (quoted in Andrews, 1993, p. 431). Gordon Allport (1961) found that, when
asked to assess their own sense of humor, 94 percent of research participants rated it
as either average or above average, with only 6 percent acknowledging a below-
average sense of humor (statistically, of course, 50 percent of the population are below
average). Herbert Lefcourt and I (1986) replicated this finding 25 years later in a study
of university students.
People generally associate a sense of humor with many desirable characteristics
beyond merely the tendency to create or enjoy humor. When research participants
were asked to rate the personality traits of a hypothetical person with a "well above
average sense of humor," as well as someone with a "below average sense of humor,"
the high-humor person was rated as being significantly more friendly, pleasant, co-
operative, interesting, imaginative, creative, clever, admirable, intelligent, and per-
ceptive, and significantly less complaining, cold, mean, and passive (Cann and
Calhoun, 2001). At the same time, though, the high-humor person was also rated as
being more impulsive, boastful, and restless, and less mature, indicating that the sense
of humor concept does contain some less desirable characteristics as well. On the
major personality dimensions of the well-known Five Factor Model (FFM) of per-
sonality (McCrae and John, 1992), this same study found that people with an above
average sense of humor are perceived to be more emotionally stable, extraverted,
open to experience, and agreeable, but less conscientious than their low-humor
counterparts.
While everyone wants to believe they have a good sense of humor, which is
thought to be associated with many desirable qualities and characteristics, no one
seems to know exactly what a sense of humor is. Indeed, Cann and Calhoun (2001)
questioned whether this popular but nebulous concept has any consistent, specific ref-
erents at all, or whether it is simply a relatively nonspecific configuration of socially
desirable characteristics. As Louise Omwake (1939, p. 95) stated over 65 years ago,
the sense of humor "is so all-inclusive and highly prized that to say of another: 'He
has a grand sense of humor' is almost synonymous with: 'He is intelligent, he's a good
sport, and I like him immensely.'" If sense of humor is to be a scientifically useful
trait concept that can be measured reliably and validly in personality research, it obvi-
ously needs to be defined more carefully and precisely.
As I have noted in earlier chapters, humor is a complex phenomenon that touches
on many aspects of our daily lives. It is a type of mental play comprising social, cog-
nitive, emotional, and expressive components. It also takes many forms, including
canned jokes, spontaneous conversational witticisms, irony, puns, double entendres,
7 • PERSONALITY APPROACHES TO THE SENSE OF HUMOR
amusing anecdotes, and unintentionally fimny speech and actions. In addition, it
serves a wide variety of psychological functions, including the cognitive and social
benefits of the positive emotion of mirth; its many uses in interpersonal communica-
tion and influence, which can be both prosocial and aggressive; and its use as a tension-
relief and coping mechanism. People can be producers of humor, amusing others and
making them laugh, and they can also respond to the humor created by others. As a
personality trait or individual difference variable, the concept of sense of humor can
relate to any of these different components, forms, and functions of humor. Indeed,
researchers investigating this trait have taken many different approaches, each focus-
ing on somewhat different aspects of this complex phenomenon. Not surprisingly,
when sense of humor is conceptualized in these different ways, it tends to be associ-
ated with different dimensions of human behavior, cognition, and personality.
When we say that someone has a sense of humor, then, we may mean many dif-
ferent things. Personality psychologist Hans Eysenck (1972) pointed out three dif-
ferent possible meanings. First, saying someone has a sense of humor may mean that
he or she laughs at the same things that we do (qualitative meaning). Second, we may
mean that the person laughs a great deal and is easily amused (quantitative meaning).
Third, we may mean that the person is the "life and soul of the party," telling funny
stories and amusing other people (productive meaning). Eysenck went on to argue that
these three different "senses of humor" are not necessarily highly correlated with each
other.
Franz-Josef Hehl and Willibald Ruch (1985) expanded on Eysenck's list, noting
that individual differences in sense of humor may relate to variation in: (1) the ability
to comprehend jokes and other humorous stimuli (i.e., to "get" the joke); (2) the way
in which individuals express humor and mirth, both quantitatively and qualitatively;
(3) their ability to create humorous comments or perceptions; (4) their appreciation of
various types of jokes, cartoons, and other humorous materials; (5) the degree to which
they actively seek out sources that make them laugh, such as comedy movies and tel-
evision programs; (6) their memory for jokes or funny events in their own lives; and
(7) their tendency to use humor as a coping mechanism. Elisha Babad (1974) also dis-
tinguished between humor production (the ability to create humor) and reproduction
(the tendency to retell jokes that one has heard from others) and showed that the two
are uncorrelated. Yet another meaning commonly associated with sense of humor is
the idea of not taking oneself too seriously and the ability to laugh at one's own foibles
and weaknesses.
Sense of humor may therefore be variously conceptualized as a habitual behavior
pattern (tendency to laugh frequently, to tell jokes and amuse others with spontaneous
witticisms, to laugh at other people's humor productions), an ability (to create humor,
to amuse others, to "get the joke," to remember jokes), a temperament trait (habitual
cheerfulness, playfulness), an aesthetic response (enjoyment of particular types of
humorous material), an attitude (positive attitude toward humor and humorous
people), a world view (bemused, nonserious outlook on life), or a coping strategy
or defense mechanism (tendency to maintain a humorous perspective in the face of
adversity).
INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN HUMOR APPRECIATION
These different ways of conceptualizing sense of humor also lend themselves to
different measurement approaches in personality research. For example, humor
appreciation tests employing funniness ratings of jokes and cartoons may be used to
measure sense of humor when it is defined as an aesthetic response. If sense of humor
is conceived as a habitual behavior pattern, however, it may be better to measure it
with self-report scales in which respondents rate the degree to which various state-
ments describe their typical humor-related behaviors, thoughts, feelings, and atti-
tudes. Alternatively, ratings obtained from peers or trained observers may be used
to quantify typical humor behaviors. On the other hand, the measurement of sense
of humor as a cognitive ability requires the use of maximal performance tests similar
to measures of intelligence or creativity, such as tasks in which participants' humor
productions are judged for funniness and originality. As we will see, each of these
different conceptualizations and measurement approaches has been employed by
different researchers.
In summary, sense of humor does not seem to be a unitary trait. Instead, it is best
conceived as a group of traits and abilities having to do with different components,
forms, and functions of humor. Some of these may be closely related to each other,
while others are likely to be quite distinct (R. A. Martin, 2003). For example, whereas
people with a good ability to create humor likely also tend to enjoy making other
people laugh, they do not necessarily also tend to use humor in coping with stress in
their daily lives. Researchers who wish to investigate hypotheses concerning sense of
humor need to be careful to identify which meaning of the construct is theoretically
most relevant to their research questions, and select the measurement approach that
is most appropriate.
INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN HUMOR APPRECIATION
Does the type of humor that a person finds most amusing tell us something about
his or her personality? This idea, which has been popular for centuries, is reflected
in the observation of the German poet Johann Wolfgang von Goethe that "men show
their character in nothing more clearly than by what they think laughable" (quoted
by Ruch and Hehl, 1998, p. 109). Based on this idea, some clinicians have proposed
that asking psychotherapy patients to tell their favorite jokes might be a useful type
of projective test that could be analyzed to diagnose their problems and identify their
unresolved needs and conflicts (e.g., Strother, Barnett, and Apostolakos, 1954;
Zwerling, 1955).
This view is also the basis of a number of humor appreciation tests that have been
developed by personality researchers over the past 50 years to indirectly assess various
personality traits (e.g., Cattell and Tollefson, 1966). Indeed, most of the research on
individual differences in sense of humor prior to the 1980s was based on this humor
appreciation approach, and it continues to have some popularity today. In this
approach, research participants are presented with a series of jokes, cartoons,
and other humorous materials, and are asked to rate them on such dimensions as
7 • PERSONALITY APPROACHES TO THE SENSE OF HUMOR
funniness, enjoyment, and aversiveness. The humor stimuli are clustered into various
categories, either on a theoretical basis or by means of factor analysis, and separate
scores are computed by summing participants' ratings within each category. In this
approach, then, sense of humor is defined in terms of the degree to which the indi-
vidual enjoys particular types or categories of humor.
Theoretically-Based Content Approaches
In many of the early humor appreciation tests, the humor stimuli (primarily jokes
and cartoons) were categorized by the experimenters or other experts on the basis of
their content themes. These content categories were typically derived from particu-
lar theories of humor, and the measures were then used in research to test these the-
ories. For example, to test Freud's theory that repressed sexual and aggressive drives
are released through humor, jokes, and cartoons were typically classified into sexual,
aggressive, and nonsense (also referred to as innocent or nontendentious) categories.
As noted in Chapter 2, most of the research on psychoanalytic humor theory used
this approach. For example, the Mirth Response Test, developed by Jacob Levine and
his colleagues (1951), consisted of 36 cartoons that were judged to tap various sex-
and aggression-related themes. Subjects' positive and negative responses to the car-
toons were thought to reveal their unconscious needs and unresolved conflicts
relating to these themes.
Research using the theoretically derived content-based humor appreciation
approach provided some evidence that people's level of enjoyment of various types of
jokes and cartoons is related to certain personality traits. For example, one early study
found that participants who preferred jokes containing sexual and aggressive themes
over more intellectually-based humor had more aggressive themes in their Thematic
Apperception Test (TAT) stories, lower scores on a measure of intellectual values, less
psychological complexity, and higher scores on a measure of extraversion (Grziwok
and Scodel, 1956). Some other studies also found positive correlations between extra-
version and liking of sexual humor (e.g., G. D. Wilson and Patterson, 1969).
In addition, participants with more conservative attitudes tended to prefer "safe"
types of humor (e.g., puns), whereas those endorsing more liberal views expressed
greater appreciation of overtly "libidinal" (e.g., sick and sexual) types of humor (G.
D. Wilson and Patterson, 1969). In general, more highly anxious individuals, as com-
pared to their less anxious counterparts, were found to enjoy humorous materials less,
although studies differed as to whether this effect occurred with all types of humor
(Hammes and Wiggins, 1962), or only with aggressive (J. Doris and Fierman, 1956)
or nonsense humor (Spiegel, Brodkin, and Keith-Spiegel, 1969). One study even
found some significant correlations between participants' funniness ratings of jokes
containing anal themes (i.e., jokes about defecation and flatulence) and measures of
"anal" personality traits such as obstinacy, negativism, hostility, cleanliness, and thrift
(O'Neill, Greenberg, and Fisher, 1992).
As in the psychoanalytically inspired research, humor appreciation tests were also
used in many of the studies investigating disparagement theories of humor (also
INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN HUMOR APPRECIATION
reviewed in Chapter 2). These tests typically comprised hostile humor that was cat-
egorized by the researchers according to the identity of the proponents and targets
of the jokes. Overall, these studies demonstrated that people tend to enjoy dispar-
agement humor that makes fun of people toward whom they have some antipathy (La
Fave et al., 1976; Wicker et al., 1980; Wolff et al., 1934; Zillmann and Cantor, 1972,
1976). As noted in Chapter 5, researchers have also used similar methods to study the
relationship between sexist attitudes and the enjoyment of sexist humor (e.g., Henkin
and Fish, 1986; Moore et al., 1987; Thomas and Esses, 2004).
In summary, a large number of studies have been conducted over the years with
humor appreciation tests containing theoretically derived, content-based categories
of humorous stimuli. Most of this research was conducted prior to the 1980s, although
some researchers have continued to employ this approach more recently to study sub-
jects' appreciation for particular types of humor, such as "sick" jokes (Herzog and
Bush, 1994; Herzog and Karafa, 1998), sexist humor (Greenwood and Isbell, 2002;
Ryan and Kanjorski, 1998), or "perspective-taking" humor (Lefcourt et al., 1997).
Although some interesting results have been obtained, this approach to classify-
ing humorous materials is subject to several criticisms (Ruch, 1992). Researchers
typically did not empirically evaluate the reliability and validity of their humor clas-
sifications, nor did they test the assumption of homogeneity of participants' responses
to humorous stimuli within a given category. As Eysenck (1972) observed, individu-
als often do not agree about which aspects of a joke or cartoon they find salient or
why they consider it to be funny or unfunny. The dimensions used by a researcher in
categorizing humorous stimuli may therefore not be relevant to the way the partici-
pants themselves perceive and respond to them. In this regard, an early study by
Landis and Ross (1933) found no relation between subjects' classifications of a number
of jokes and the way these jokes had been classified by the experimenters, even when
the subjects were provided with the categories and their definitions.
In addition, because researchers using this approach selected particular humor-
ous stimuli to fit their theories, they were unable to determine whether their classi-
fication systems applied to all kinds of humor or merely to a subset. Finally, since
many of the humor appreciation tests were used in only one or two studies by indi-
vidual researchers, it is difficult to compare the results across different studies. Because
of these weaknesses, this approach has not led to much accumulation of knowledge
about the nature of sense of humor.
Early Factor Analytic Studies
An alternative to the theoretically derived content-based method of categorizing
humor stimuli involves the use of factor analysis techniques. Rather than construct-
ing a test based on a particular theory, this approach seeks to build a theory on the
basis of empirically derived factor dimensions. Factor analysis is a statistical technique
for examining correlations among a large set of variables and identifying a smaller
number of dimensions (i.e., factors) that account for most of the variance. This
method has been used extensively by personality researchers to search for basic
7 • PERSONALITY APPROACHES TO THE SENSE OF HUMOR
personality traits, as in the FFM mentioned earlier. Over the years, some humor
researchers have also applied this technique to identify basic dimensions of humor
appreciation.
The general strategy in this approach is to obtain a large number of jokes, car-
toons, and other humorous stimuli that are considered to be representative of the
whole domain. These materials are then rated for funniness by a large number of
research participants. By factor-analyzing these ratings, researchers can determine the
implicit dimensions underlying people's appreciation of humor. Jokes and cartoons
whose ratings are highly correlated tend to cluster together in the same factor, whereas
those whose ratings are uncorrelated fall into different factors. By examining the char-
acteristics that are shared by the humorous stimuli that load on each factor, researchers
can identify the relevant dimensions that people implicitly use in their appraisals of
these stimuli.
Early factor analytic studies of humor appreciation were conducted by Hans
Eysenck, a well-known German-British personality researcher (reviewed by Nias,
1981). Noting that most theories of humor were developed by philosophers and based
on speculation, Eysenck sought to develop a theory based on empirical evidence. To
do this, he administered collections of verbal jokes, cartoons, and incongruous pho-
tographs to 16 participants (a very small sample by today's standards) who were asked
to rank-order them for funniness and to indicate which ones they enjoyed (Eysenck,
1942). Factor analyses of these data revealed a small general factor, indicating indi-
vidual differences in the degree to which people find any kind of humor to be funny.
In addition, the analyses revealed three specific factors or dimensions of humor, which
were labeled as (1) sexual versus nonsexual; (2) simple versus complex; and (3) per-
sonal versus impersonal.
Eysenck also examined the correlations between participants' ratings of humor
on the three factors and their scores on a personality test. Sexual and simple jokes
were found to be preferred by extraverted individuals, while complex and nonsexual
jokes were preferred by introverts. These factor analytic results were generally repli-
cated by Eysenck (1943) in another study in which he administered five sets of humor-
ous stimuli, including jokes, cartoons, and funny limericks, to 100 adults representing
a broad cross section of British society.
Based on these factor analytic findings, Eysenck (1942) proposed a theoretical
model of humor comprising three components or facets: cognitive (corresponding to
the complexity of the humor), conative (having to do with motivation or impulse
expression), and affective (relating to emotional aspects). He further combined the
conative and affective components under the term orectic, which has to do with the
"joyful consciousness of superior adaptation" associated with humor. He noted that
different traditional theories of humor focus on one or another of these humor facets.
The cognitive aspects are emphasized in incongruity theories of humor, the conative
in superiority/disparagement theories, and the affective in theories that stress the pos-
itive emotions associated with laughter. According to Eysenck, Freud's theory com-
bined elements of all three components.
INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN HUMOR APPRECIATION 19'
Eysenck also suggested that each of these components may be present in a given
joke to varying degrees, and individual differences in sense of humor may be con-
ceptualized in terms of the degree to which people enjoy humor containing these dif-
ferent elements. For example, he suggested that introverts are more likely to enjoy
humor in which the cognitive element predominates, whereas extraverts tend to prefer
humor in which the orectic aspects are paramount. Further support for this view was
provided by Wilson and Patterson (1969) who found a significant correlation between
participants' scores on a measure of extraversion and their funniness ratings of sexual
jokes. However, as we will see, other researchers have failed to replicate this finding
(Ruch, 1992). Overall, then, Eysenck was one of the first researchers who attempted
to develop a general theory of sense of humor based on factor analytic studies of
humor appreciation.
Raymond Cattell was another well-known pioneer of general personality research
who conducted early factor analytic studies of humor appreciation. Cattell and
Luborsky (1947) collected a set of 100 jokes that were considered to be representa-
tive of a broad range of humor and relatively free of cultural bias. A sample of 50 male
and 50 female undergraduate students were asked to rate the funniness of each joke
on two different occasions. Factor analyses revealed 1 3 clusters of jokes that appeared
to have adequate internal consistency and test-retest reliability. Subjects' scores on
each of these clusters were subsequently submitted to an additional factor analysis,
resulting in five fairly orthogonal (i.e., uncorrelated) factors. Based on the themes of
the jokes loading on each factor, the factors were tentatively labeled as: (1) good-
natured self-assertion; (2) rebellious dominance; (3) easy going sensuality; (4) resigned
derision; and (5) urbane sophistication. The authors suggested that these clusters and
factors of humor appreciation might be related to the 12 to 16 general personality
factors identified by Cattell (1947) in his factor analyses of personality traits.
To test these ideas, in a subsequent study Luborsky and Cattell (1947) examined
the correlations between individuals' funniness scores on the 1 3 joke clusters and their
scores on 10 personality dimensions measured by the Guilford-Martin temperament
inventory. Six of these personality dimensions were found to be significantly corre-
lated with funniness ratings of various joke clusters, allowing for further refinement
of the cluster labels. These findings caused the authors to be quite optimistic about
the possibility of using these humor appreciation factors as a method of assessing more
general dimensions of personality. For example, one joke factor was found to be cor-
related with extraversion, and it was suggested that those jokes could be used as an
objective measure of this trait. These ideas were subsequently incorporated into the
IPAT Humor Test of Personality (Cattell and Tollefson, 1966), which was designed
to assess humor preferences in each of these factors as a way of indirectly measuring
more general personality traits.
Despite the effort that went into developing the IPAT humor test, it had several
weaknesses and was never widely used. The reliabilities of the scales were quite low,
and the stability of the factor structure was questionable. Other researchers factor-
analyzed the same set of jokes and found an entirely different factor structure (Yarnold
X) 7 • PERSONALITY APPROACHES TO THE SENSE OF HUMOR
and Berkeley, 1954). Part of the problem seems to have been the use of a forced-
choice response format, resulting in the overextraction of numerous weak and unsta-
ble factors and suppression of stronger and more stable factors (Ruch, 1992). In
addition, very little research was conducted to evaluate the validity of the humor factor
scores as measures of more general personality traits. This test has been used in only
a few published studies to investigate such topics as personality traits of effective coun-
selors (Kush, 1997), the relation between humor appreciation and perceived physical
health (Carroll, 1990), and gender differences in humor appreciation (Carroll, 1989;
Hickson, 1977).
Ruch's Factor-Analytic Investigations
The early factor-analytic studies of humor appreciation were limited by small
sample sizes and a number of methodological weaknesses. In the early 1980s,
Willibald Ruch, an Austrian psychologist who is now at the University of Zurich in
Switzerland, set out to investigate the factor structure of humor appreciation in a more
thorough and systematic way (for a review, see Ruch, 1992). To ensure a compre-
hensive representation of humor types, he began by amassing a set of 600 jokes and
cartoons that were obtained from a wide range of sources. Many were taken randomly
from popular magazines and joke books, while others were selected as representative
of the categories discussed in the humor literature and used in previous studies.
Over a series of factor-analytic studies conducted by Ruch and his colleagues, dif-
fering but overlapping sets of jokes and cartoons from this initial pool were adminis-
tered to a number of samples of male and female participants representing a broad
range of ages, social class, occupations, and health status (Hehl and Ruch, 1985;
McGhee, Ruch, and Hehl, 1990; Ruch, 1981, 1984, 1988; Ruch, McGhee, and Hehl,
1990). The materials were also translated into several languages, and studies were con-
ducted with samples in Austria, Germany, England, Turkey, France, Italy, and the
United States (Forabosco and Ruch, 1994; Ruch and Forabosco, 1996; Ruch and
Hehl, 1998; Ruch et al., 1991).
These factor-analytic studies revealed three stable and robust factors that appear
to account for most of the variance in humor appreciation and are consistently found
across different humorous stimuli and in all populations studied. Interestingly, the first
two factors have to do with structural aspects of humor, rather than content themes.
The first of these, labeled incongruity-resolution humor (INC-RES), comprises jokes
and cartoons in which the incongruity introduced by the punch line can be resolved
by information available elsewhere in the joke. In these jokes, there is a sense of having
"gotten the point" or understood the joke once it is resolved. Most of the "canned"
jokes that people relate in social settings, consisting of a setup and a punch line, fit
into this category. This type of humor is consistent with the two-stage incongruity-
resolution models of humor discussed in Chapter 3 (e.g., Suls, 1972).
The second factor, labeled nonsense humor (NON), also relates to joke structure
rather than content. Jokes and cartoons in this category also contain a surprising or
incongruous element, but the incongruity is not fully resolved, giving the appearance
INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN HUMOR APPRECIATION 20
of making sense without actually doing so. This type of humor might be described as
bizarre, fanciful, off-the-wall, or zany. In this humor there is not a sense of "getting"
the joke, but rather one of enjoying a fanciful incongruity for its own sake. Many of
Gary Larsen's Far Side cartoons, as well as the zany humor of Monty Python 's Flying
Circus have been found to load on this factor (Ruch, 1992, 1999). Thus, contrary to
the assumption made by earlier researchers that humor should be categorized accord-
ing to its content or themes, Ruch's research demonstrated that people's humor
preferences have more to do with structure than with content.
The third factor, labeled sexual humor (SEX) is composed of jokes and cartoons
containing obvious sexual content themes, indicating that people tend to be fairly con-
sistent in the degree to which they enjoy or dislike sexual humor. Most of these sexual
humor materials were also found to have secondary loadings on one or the other of
the first two structural factors, depending on whether the humor contained resolved
or unresolved incongruity. An example of a SEX joke with a secondary ING-RES
loading is the following:
"So how was Scotland?" the father asked his daughter, who had just returned from a vacation. "Is
it true they all have bagpipes?" "Oh, that's just one of those silly stereotypes," replied the daughter.
"All the ones I met had quite a normal one."
The incongruity of the daughter's reply is resolved when we recognize that she mis-
understood her father's question about bagpipes to be referring to the appearance of
Scottish men's genitals. In contrast, a cartoon that loaded on the SEX factor with a
secondary NON loading shows a hen lying on her back with her legs in the air, saying
to a rooster who is facing her, "Just once ... for a change." A hen desiring sex in the
"missionary position" is incongruous, and this incongruity cannot be resolved by
finding some additional information that enables one to "get the joke."
The SEX factor, which was the only one found by Ruch that had to do with
content, has also consistently been found in other factor-analytic studies (e.g.,
Eysenck, 1942; Herzog and Larwin, 1988). Although, as we have seen, many past
researchers have classified humor stimuli on a theoretical basis into various additional
content categories, such as aggressive, hostile, sexist, scatological, anal, or sick humor,
Ruch's investigations did not reveal any such content factors, even though he was
careful to include examples of all these kinds of humor among his stimuli. Instead,
humor containing these sorts of themes always loaded on one or the other of the two
structural factors. Thus, apart from sexual themes, individuals do not appear to
respond in any consistent way to jokes or cartoons based on the topic of the humor.
Instead, the degree to which people enjoy humor seems to be primarily influenced by
whether or not the incongruity is resolved, or "makes sense" in some way.
Besides factor-analyzing the humor stimuli, Ruch also investigated the factor
structure of participants' responses to humor. Using a number of different positive and
negative rating scales, Ruch found two response factors: (1) a positive enjoyment or
funniness factor, and (2) an aversiveness or rejection factor. These were only weakly
negatively correlated, indicating that individuals who find a particular joke to be very
funny do not necessarily rate it as low on aversiveness. For example, an individual
7 • PERSONALITY APPROACHES TO THE SENSE OF HUMOR
might view a sexist or racist joke as very funny but also very aversive. Thus, funni-
ness or enjoyment ratings alone do not adequately assess people's responses to humor;
it is also important to evaluate their negative reactions. Furthermore, research by Igor
Gavanski (1986) indicated that these sorts of funniness and aversiveness ratings pri-
marily reflect people's cognitive evaluations of humor stimuli, rather than their emo-
tional response (i.e., the degree of mirth experienced), which is more strongly gauged
by the amount of smiling and laughter displayed. This partial dissociation between
cognitive and emotional responses to humor explains why many studies have found
only weak correlations between funniness ratings and the degree of smiling and
laughter.
Based on his factor-analytic studies, Ruch (1983) constructed the 3WD (Witz-
dimensioneri) humor test to assess individuals' ratings of funniness and aversiveness of
jokes and cartoons on the three identified factors. A 50-item version (form K) and
two parallel 3 5 -item versions (forms A and B) are available. The jokes and cartoons
are printed in test booklets, and respondents are instructed to rate their funniness and
aversiveness on 6-point scales. The total funniness and aversiveness scores for each
factor have been shown to have good internal consistencies and test-retest reliabili-
ties. Scores on the three factors are moderately positively intercorrelated, indicating
that, to some degree, individuals who enjoy (or dislike) one type of humor also tend
to enjoy (or dislike) the others.
Personality Correlates of the 3WD Dimensions
Numerous studies have been conducted to examine correlations between scores
on the three factors of the 3WD humor test and a variety of personality traits
(reviewed in Ruch, 1992; Ruch and Hehl, 1998). The total funniness ratings across
the three factors have been found to be weakly correlated with extraversion, indicat-
ing that extraverts are somewhat more likely than introverts to enjoy all kinds of jokes
and cartoons. In addition, the total aversiveness scores are weakly correlated with neu-
roticism, indicating that people who generally experience more negative emotions
such as anxiety, depression, or guilt tend to dislike all kinds of jokes and cartoons.
This is particularly true for neurotic individuals who are also introverted and who are
high on tender-mindedness, a construct relating to empathy, concern for others, tol-
erance, and democratic values. These findings are consistent with recent fMRI find-
ings (discussed in Chapter 6) that people who are high in extraversion and those who
are low in neuroticism show greater activation of the reward centers in the limbic
system of the brain on exposure to humorous cartoons (Mobbs et al., 2005). Inter-
estingly, total funniness scores on the 3WD have also been found to be negatively
correlated with religious fundamentalism and orthodoxy, indicating that people who
are high in these types of conservative religious orientation are less likely to enjoy all
types of jokes and cartoons (Saroglou, 2003).
Much of Ruch's research has focused on personality traits having to do with
conservatism, tolerance of ambiguity, and sensation seeking in relation to the two
structure-related humor dimensions (NON and INC-RES). Since the appreciation of
INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN HUMOR APPRECIATION 20',
nonsense humor requires the individual to tolerate and even enjoy residual incon-
gruity, bizarreness, and absurdity, Ruch hypothesized that this type of humor would
be enjoyed by people who have a high tolerance for ambiguity, a general sensation-
seeking orientation, and a preference for complex, novel, and unstructured stimuli.
On the other hand, since ING-RES humor is more unambiguous and uncomplicated,
and generally involves the application of stereotypes to resolve the incongruity, the
enjoyment of this type of humor was predicted to be related to greater conservatism
and a general need for structured, uncomplicated, stable, unambiguous, and safe forms
of stimulation.
Research conducted by Ruch and others has provided a good deal of support for
these predictions. Measures of conservative and authoritarian personality traits and
attitudes have consistently been found to be positively correlated with funniness
ratings of INC-RES humor and with aversiveness ratings of NON humor (Hehl
and Ruch, 1990; Ruch, 1984; Ruch and Hehl, 1986a, 1986b). Thus, individuals who
espouse more conservative views (as measured by scales of intolerance of minorities,
militarism, religious fundamentalism, education to submission, traditional family ide-
ology, capitalism, economic values, and value orthodoxy) and authoritarian attitudes
(punitiveness, intolerance of ambiguity, law-and-order attitude) are more likely to
enjoy humor in which the incongruity is resolved and one can "get the joke," and to
dislike more bizarre or zany humor that does not seem to "make sense."
In one study, for example, Ruch and his colleagues asked participants to indicate
the degree to which they believe criminals should be punished for a range of crimes
such as fraud, robbery, rape, and murder (Ruch, Busse, and Hehl, 1996). As predicted,
the results revealed that the more these individuals enjoyed INC-RES humor, the
more severely they thought criminals should be punished for all types of crime (i.e.,
longer prison terms). If you are charged with a crime, you may wish to avoid a judge
who enjoys these kinds of jokes! Not surprisingly, since older people generally tend
to be more conservative than younger people, they also tend to enjoy INC-RES jokes
more (Ruch et al, 1990).
Sensation seeking is a personality trait involving a need for varied, novel, and
complex sensations and experiences, and a willingness to take risks. People who are
high on sensation seeking tend to enjoy having new and stimulating experiences
through art, music, travel, food, and even taking psychedelic drugs and living an
unconventional lifestyle. Research with the 3WD has shown that individuals with
high scores on measures of sensation seeking, as well as related constructs such
as venturesomeness and hedonism, enjoy nonsense humor significantly more than
incongruity-resolution humor (Hehl and Ruch, 1985, 1990; Ruch, 1988). Enjoyment
of NON humor has also been found to be positively correlated with the openness to
experience dimension of the FFM (Ruch and Hehl, 1998). In addition, greater enjoy-
ment of NON humor is weakly related to higher intelligence, whereas enjoyment of
INC-RES humor tends to correlate with lower intelligence (Ruch, 1992).
Other studies have examined preferences for stimulus uncertainty and complex-
ity in relation to these structural factors of humor appreciation. In one study, partic-
ipants were asked to wear prism glasses that distort the normal visual field by flipping
14 7 • PERSONALITY APPROACHES TO THE SENSE OF HUMOR
it upside-down or left-to-right. Those with higher funniness ratings of NON humor
kept the glasses on for a longer time and moved around more while wearing them,
indicating a greater willingness to experiment with this novel experience (Ruch and
Hehl, 1998). Enjoyment of NON humor was also shown to be significantly corre-
lated with preference for more complex and abstract forms of art, whereas enjoyment
of INC-RES humor was related to preference for simpler, more representational types
of art. When research participants were instructed to arrange black and white plastic
squares into an aesthetically pleasing configuration, the productions of individuals
with greater appreciation of NON humor were judged to be more complex (Ruch
and Hehl, 1998).
Overall, then, the two humor structures appear to partly represent the opposite
poles of some personality dimensions (e.g., simplicity-complexity), while also partly
relating to entirely different dimensions. In particular, INC-RES humor tends to
correlate with conservative and authoritarian attitudes and values, whereas NON
humor relates to variables involving imagination and fantasy. The relation between
conservative attitudes and values and the enjoyment of INC-RES humor is likely due
to the fact that stereotypical attitudes (e.g., about particular ethnic groups) need to
be invoked in order to resolve the incongruity of most of these kinds of jokes. Indi-
viduals with more conservative attitudes may have easier access to the information
required for resolving the incongruity and may also derive greater satisfaction from
the resulting support that is provided to their belief systems. On the other hand, the
stronger association of imagination and fantasy with enjoyment of NON humor is
likely explained by the fact that this type of humor involves a greater deviation from
reality and requires a willingness to accept improbable events and enter the world of
fantasy.
With regard to the content factor of sexual humor, research with the 3WD indi-
cates that enjoyment of this category of humor relates most strongly to the tough-
minded versus tenderminded dimension of social attitudes. Toughmindedness is
characterized by independent, rational, self-sufficient, and unfanciful dispositions,
whereas tendermindedness has to do with empathy, concern for others, sentimental-
ity, tolerance, and democratic values. Regardless of the structure of the joke or
cartoon, toughminded individuals tend to show greater enjoyment of sexual humor,
whereas tenderminded people tend to rate such humor as being more aversive (Ruch
and Hehl, 1986b). Moreover, the more highly a given joke or cartoon loads on the
sexual factor, the stronger the correlation between its funniness ratings and the tough-
mindedness versus tendermindedness dimension, indicating that the enjoyment of
sexual humor may be viewed as an indicator of toughminded attitudes (Ruch, 1992).
Some additional correlations have been found when SEX humor is divided into
NON and INC-RES types on the basis of its structure. For example, enjoyment of
sexual humor with the incongruity-resolution structure (INC-RES SEX) is correlated
positively with both conservatism and toughmindedness, resulting also in positive cor-
relations with variables such as authoritarianism, intolerance of ambiguity, political
and economic conservatism, technical interests, and support for education toward sub-
missiveness, and negative correlations with aesthetic and social interests (Hehl and
Ruch, 1990; Ruch and Hehl, 1986b, 1987). Thus, enjoyment of sexual humor that is
SELF-REPORT MEASURES OF SENSE OF HUMOR DIMENSIONS 2C
based on the incongruity-resolution structure (i.e., the most common kinds of sexual
jokes that people frequently tell in social situations) has little to do with sex per se, but
instead has to do with toughminded conservatism (authoritarianism). Interestingly,
since authoritarian individuals tend to have exaggerated concerns about "sexual
goings-on," their enjoyment of sexual humor of the incongruity-resolution type seems
to have more to do with rigid sexual preoccupations than with sexual permissiveness
or pleasure (Ruch, 1992).
On the other hand, enjoyment of sexual humor that is based on the nonsense
structure (NON SEX), and is therefore more fanciful and bizarre, is unrelated to
conservative attitudes (although still related to toughmindedness), but is positively
correlated with scales of disinhibition, sensation seeking, hedonism, interest in sex,
and sexual libido, permissiveness, pleasure, and experience (Hehl and Ruch, 1990;
Ruch and Hehl, 1986b, 1988). Thus, it is only the appreciation of sexual humor of
the nonsense structure type that is related to positive sexual attitudes and experience.
In summary, Ruch's research with the 3 WD has gone a long way in clarifying the
nature of individual differences in appreciation of jokes and cartoons. An important
finding is that people's enjoyment of these forms of humor is determined not so much
by the content but by the structure of the humor. In particular, individuals tend to
respond quite differently to jokes and cartoons in which the incongruity is resolved
and there is a sense of "getting the joke" versus those in which the incongruity is unre-
solved and which might be described as bizarre, fanciful, off-the-wall, or zany. Sexual
topics are the only content domain in humor for which individuals show consistent
response patterns.
This research also indicates that there is truth to the long-held view that the type
of jokes a person enjoys tells us something about his or her personality. However, the
particular personality traits associated with humor appreciation are not as self-evident
as one might expect. It may be surprising to many that people who enjoy the sorts of
jokes that are most commonly told in social contexts (i.e., incongruity-resolution
jokes) tend to be individuals with conservative values and attitudes. When such jokes
are of a sexual nature, their enjoyment also indicates toughminded, unsympathetic,
intolerant, and authoritarian attitudes. On the other hand, the enjoyment of the more
bizarre and fanciful nonsense humor (which is more likely to be encountered in car-
toons, literature, and films than in canned jokes) indicates greater openness, tolerance
for ambiguity, sensation seeking, intelligence, and enjoyment of novelty and com-
plexity. When this sort of humor contains sexual themes, its enjoyment indicates more
liberal (although still toughminded) attitudes and greater sexual permissiveness and
enjoyment.
SELF-REPORT MEASURES OF SENSE OF HUMOR DIMENSIONS
The humor appreciation approach to conceptualizing and measuring sense of
humor, discussed in the previous section, focuses on canned jokes and cartoons which,
as I have pointed out in earlier chapters, comprise only a small fraction of the forms
of humor that people encounter in their daily lives. Moreover, this approach is limited
6 7 • PERSONALITY APPROACHES TO THE SENSE OF HUMOR
to people's enjoyment of these types of humor, and does not include their tendency
to create humor spontaneously and to amuse other people in their everyday lives.
Consequently, this approach to sense of humor, although it has produced many inter-
esting research findings, seems to address only a limited aspect of the many ways indi-
viduals may habitually differ from one another in regard to humor.
In the mid-1970s, researchers began to develop self-report measures of sense of
humor as an alternative to the humor appreciation approach, in order to investigate
some of these other humor-related individual-difference dimensions. This change in
methodology was associated with a shift in interest toward the everyday functions of
humor, including its role in interpersonal relationships, coping with stress, and mental
and physical health. These sorts of research questions required measures that assess
the degree to which people create, enjoy, and engage in humor in their daily lives,
and researchers with this perspective began to question whether humor appreciation
measures were appropriate for these purposes (Lefcourt and Martin, 1986).
Although the humor appreciation approach provided a great deal of interesting
information about the personality traits of individuals who enjoy particular types of
humor (and indeed, Ruch was just beginning to conduct his more systematic research
on this topic around the same time), this approach did not seem to capture some of
the dimensions of sense of humor that were of interest to this new generation of
researchers. The fact that an individual rates jokes and cartoons as funny does not
necessarily mean that he or she engages in humor in daily life. Indeed, in a large mul-
titrait-multimethod study of sense of humor, Elisha Babad (1974) found no relation-
ship between individuals' scores on humor appreciation tests and either peer- or
self-ratings of their tendency to appreciate, produce, or reproduce humor in their
daily lives. In contrast, self-ratings were significantly correlated with peer-ratings of
these dimensions of sense of humor.
Thus, it appeared that self-report measures may be a more valid approach for
assessing certain aspects of sense of humor that are not tapped by humor apprecia-
tion tests. An initial concern of researchers was that self-report humor tests might be
particularly susceptible to a social desirability bias. In other words, because a sense of
humor is such a desirable characteristic, research participants might not be objective
when rating their own sense of humor and might tend to overestimate it. Although
this may well occur when people are asked to rate their overall sense of humor, sub-
sequent research indicates that questions focusing on specific humor-related behav-
iors or attitudes do not seem to be strongly contaminated by social desirability
(Lefcourt and Martin, 1986). Over the years, a number of different self-report scales
have been developed, each designed to measure a somewhat different component or
aspect of sense of humor. In the following sections, I will discuss a few of the more
widely used measures (for a more complete listing, see Ruch, 1998b).
Svebak's Sense of Humor Questionnaire
Norwegian psychologist Sven Svebak (1974a, 1974b), now at the Norwegian Uni-
versity of Science and Technology in Trondheim, was one of the first researchers to
SELF-REPORT MEASURES OF SENSE OF HUMOR DIMENSIONS
break with the tradition of focusing on humor appreciation using funniness ratings of
jokes and cartoons, and initiated the measurement of sense of humor using self-report
questionnaires. In one of the earliest articles to specifically present a theory of sense
of humor as a personality trait, Svebak (1974b) observed that smooth social func-
tioning requires the construction of a shared, rational "social world." However, this
shared perspective on the world is somewhat arbitrary, and can also be constraining
and stifling. Sense of humor, like creativity, is "the ability to imagine . . . irrational
social worlds, and to behave according to such fantasies within the existing (real) social
frame in such a way that the latter is not brought into a state of collapse" (Svebak,
1974b, p. 99). Thus, "humor may be said to be a defense against the monotony of
culture more than against bodily displeasure" (p. 100).
Svebak suggested that individual differences in sense of humor involve variations
in three separate dimensions: (1) meta-message sensitivity, or the ability to take an irra-
tional, mirthful perspective on situations, seeing the social world as it might be rather
than as it is; (2) personal liking of humor and the humorous role; and (3) emotional per-
missiveness, or the tendency to laugh frequently in a wide range of situations. With
regard to the components of humor that I have discussed in earlier chapters, the first
of these dimensions relates primarily to the cognitive component, having to do with
a nonserious outlook and an ability to shift perspective in a creative manner. The
second dimension involves playful attitudes and a lack of defensiveness toward humor,
and the third relates to the positive emotion of mirth and its expression through
laughter.
Svebak (1974a) constructed the Sense of Humor Questionnaire (SHQ) to
measure individual differences in each of the three dimensions posited in his theory,
with seven items for each dimension. Examples of the items in each subscale are as
follows: (1) metamessage sensitivity (M): "I can usually find something comical, witty,
or humorous in most situations"; (2) liking of humor (L): "It is my impression that
those who try to be funny really do it to hide their lack of self-confidence" (dis-
agreement with this statement results in higher scores on the scale); and (3) emotional
expressiveness (E): "If I find a situation very comical, I find it very hard to keep a
straight face even when nobody else seems to think it's funny." Individuals complet-
ing the measure are instructed to rate the degree to which each item is descriptive of
them, using a four-point Like rt- type scale. Initial research revealed moderate corre-
lations between the M and L and the M and E dimensions, and no correlation between
L and E, indicating that the three dimensions were relatively independent of one
another.
Subsequent research using this measure indicated acceptable psychometric
properties (reliability and validity) for the M and L scales, but inadequate values for
the E scale (Lefcourt and Martin, 1986). In studies employing this measure, there-
fore, researchers tended to use only the first two subscales. Support for the validity
of these two scales has been provided by significant correlations with peer ratings of
humor, as well as with other self-report humor tests (to be described below). The
measure was used in research on stress-buffering effects of sense of humor, which I
will discuss in Chapter 9. Svebak (1996) later published a shorter, six-item version of
7 • PERSONALITY APPROACHES TO THE SENSE OF HUMOR
the SHQ (SHQ-6) which comprises three items each from the original M and L
scales. These six items were found to form a single factor in a factor analysis of SHQ
data from nearly 1000 participants, and reliability analysis of the scale revealed a good
internal consistency. The SHQ-6 has also been used in research on humor and stress
(Svebak, Gotestam, and Jensen, 2004), and Svebak (1996) recommended its use in
large-scale survey research in which a short measure of sense of humor is required.
The Situational Humor Response Questionnaire
Herbert Lefcourt and I developed the Situational Humor Response Question-
naire (SHRQ) at the University of Waterloo for use in our research on the stress-
moderating effects of sense of humor (R. A. Martin and Lefcourt, 1984). In developing
this scale, we focused particularly on the emotional-expressive component of humor,
that is, smiling and laughter. Thus, we defined sense of humor as the frequency with
which a person smiles, laughs, and otherwise displays amusement in a wide variety of
situations. In adopting this definition, we were making the assumption that overt
expressions of smiling and laughter are indicators of the emotion of mirth that is
elicited by the perception, creation, and enjoyment of humor in one's daily life.
The scale comprises 18 items that present participants with brief descriptions of
situations (e.g., "if you were eating in a restaurant with some friends and the waiter
accidentally spilled a drink on you"). These include both pleasant and unpleasant sit-
uations, ranging from specific and structured to general and unstructured, and from
relatively common to relatively unusual. For each item, respondents are asked to rate
the degree to which they would be likely to laugh in such a situation, using five
response options ranging from "I would not have been particularly amused" to "I
would have laughed heartily." In addition to the 18 situational items, the scale con-
tains three self-descriptive items relating to the frequency with which the participant
generally laughs and smiles in a wide range of situations.
The SHRQ has been found to have acceptable internal consistency and test-retest
reliability (Lefcourt and Martin, 1986). Males and females typically do not obtain dif-
ferent mean scores. The validity support for the SHRQ is quite extensive (see
Lefcourt and Martin, 1986; R. A. Martin, 1996). For example, individuals with higher
scores on the SHRQ displayed higher frequency and duration of spontaneous laugh-
ter during unstructured interviews and also recorded more frequent daily laughter in
three-day diaries (R. A. Martin and Kuiper, 1999). SHRQ scores also have been found
to correlate significantly with peer ratings of participants' frequency of laughter and
tendency to use humor in coping with stress. In addition, scores have correlated
significantly with the rated funniness of monologues created by participants in the
laboratory. Individuals with higher SHRQ scores were also found to make more spon-
taneously funny comments in a nonhumorous creativity task. The SHRQ is uncorre-
lated with measures of social desirability, providing evidence of discriminant validity
(Lefcourt and Martin, 1986). The measure has been used extensively in research on
sense of humor in relation to mental and physical health, which will be discussed in
Chapters 9 and 10.
SELF-REPORT MEASURES OF SENSE OF HUMOR DIMENSIONS
Lambert Deckers and Willibald Ruch (1992b) found no significant correlations
between the SHRQ and either the total score or the three factor scores on Ruch's
3WD measure of humor appreciation. Thus, as Lefcourt and I (1986) had hypothe-
sized, tests of humor appreciation employing respondents' ratings of the funniness or
aversiveness of jokes and cartoons represent a completely different construct from that
assessed by self-report humor measures such as the SHRQ. Individuals might rate
particular types of jokes and cartoons on the 3 WD as being very humorous without
necessarily engaging in much humor in their daily lives.
On the other hand, the SHRQ has been found to be positively correlated with
extraversion (Ruch and Deckers, 1993), indicating that individuals who tend to laugh
readily in a range of situations (as indicated by high scores on the SHRQ) tend also
to be characterized by extraverted traits such as sociable, people-oriented, active,
talkative, optimistic, fun-loving, and joyful. In addition, the SHRQ is correlated
with sensation-seeking, a variable that is also associated with extraversion, indicating
that individuals who tend to laugh frequently also tend to seek highly arousing
thrills, adventure, and varied experiences, and are easily bored (Deckers and Ruch,
1992a). Interestingly, social drinkers with higher scores on the SHRQ have also been
found to have higher rates of alcohol consumption (Lowe and Taylor, 1993). This
finding may also be a function of extraversion, since other research indicates that
extraverted individuals tend to drink more alcohol than do introverts (M. Cook et al.,
1998).
The SHRQ has been criticized for defining sense of humor purely in terms of
laughter frequency (Thorson, 1990). Indeed, as I have acknowledged, laughter can
occur without humor, and there can be humor without laughter (R. A. Martin, 1996).
Nonetheless, correlations between the SHRQ and various measures of personality and
well-being are comparable to those found with other self-report humor measures such
as the Coping Humor Scale (to be discussed next), suggesting that it assesses a more
general sense of humor trait than simply the tendency to laugh. A study by Lourey
and McLachlan (2003) indicates that the SHRQ relates to perceptions of humor and
not merely laughter frequency. Moreover, research showing positive correlations
between participants' scores on the SHRQ and their humor production ability indi-
cates that it taps into humor creation and not just laughter responsiveness. This
broader construct validity of the measure may be due to the inclusion of a number of
items describing unpleasant or mildly stressful situations. Consequently, more than
merely assessing the frequency of laughter per se, the SHRQ appears to address the
tendency to maintain a humorous perspective when faced with unpleasant or poten-
tially embarrassing events.
A potentially more serious shortcoming of this measure is that the situations
described in the items are specific to university students' experiences (and even more
particularly those of Canadian students), and it is therefore less suitable for other pop-
ulations. Furthermore, the situations described in the items have become somewhat
dated over time and may be difficult for many people to relate to today. For these
reasons, the SHRQ would likely benefit from a careful revision if it is to be used in
further research.
7 • PERSONALITY APPROACHES TO THE SENSE OF HUMOR
The Coping Humor Scale
The Coping Humor Scale (CHS) is another measure that Herbert Lefcourt and
I developed in the context of our research on sense of humor as a stress-moderating
personality trait (R. A. Martin and Lefcourt, 1983). Instead of attempting to assess a
broad sense of humor construct, this test was designed to measure more narrowly the
degree to which individuals report using humor in coping with stress. Thus, it focused
specifically on one particular function of humor. The CHS contains seven items that
are self-descriptive statements such as "I have often found that my problems have been
greatly reduced when I tried to find something funny in them" and "I can usually find
something to laugh or joke about even in trying situations." Research with the CHS
has demonstrated marginally acceptable internal consistency and acceptable test-retest
reliability (R. A. Martin, 1996).
There is also considerable support for the construct validity of this scale (sum-
marized by Lefcourt and Martin, 1986; R. A. Martin, 1996). For example, scores on
the CHS have correlated significantly with peer ratings of individuals' tendency to
use humor to cope with stress and not take themselves too seriously. In addition, the
CHS was significantly correlated with the rated funniness of participants' humorous
monologues created while watching a stressful film, but not with the spontaneous fun-
niness of responses in a nonstressful creativity task, indicating that it specifically relates
to the production of humor in stressful situations. In another study, dental patients
with higher scores on the CHS were found to engage in significantly more joking and
laughter before undergoing dental surgery (Trice and Price-Greathouse, 1986).
The measure is generally uncorrelated with measures of social desirability,
thereby lending discriminant validity support. With regard to other personality traits,
the CHS has been found to be positively related to self-esteem, stability of self-
concept, realistic cognitive appraisals, optimism, sense of coherence, and extraversion,
and negatively related to dysfunctional attitudes and neuroticism (R. A. Martin, 1996).
Thus, it seems to primarily assess humor in an extraverted, emotionally stable type of
personality. Research using the CHS in relation to mental and physical health will be
discussed in more detail in Chapters 9 and 10. The CHS does have some psycho-
metric limitations, however, particularly a relatively weak internal consistency
resulting from low item-total correlations of some items.
The Humor Styles Questionnaire
Many of the self-report humor scales were developed for research on humor in
relation to mental and physical health, and nearly all of these were based on the
assumption that a sense of humor is inherently beneficial to health and well-being.
However, as we have seen in earlier chapters of this book, humor does not always
seem to be used in psychologically beneficial ways. For example, the hostile, manip-
ulative, and coercive uses of humor that were discussed in Chapter 5 do not seem to
be very conducive to healthy interpersonal relationships. Indeed, it could be argued
that humor is essentially neutral with regard to mental health: its implications for
health depend on how it is used by the individual in interacting with other people.
SELF-REPORT MEASURES OF SENSE OF HUMOR DIMENSIONS
Since most humor measures do not distinguish between positive and negative uses of
humor, however, they are limited in their usefulness for studying potentially detri-
mental aspects.
Recently, my students and I have developed the Humor Styles Questionnaire
(HSQ), a measure designed to distinguish between potentially beneficial and detri-
mental humor styles (R. A. Martin et al., 2003). The focus of this measure is on the
functions for which people spontaneously use humor in their everyday lives, particu-
larly in the domains of social interaction and coping with life stress. Based on a review
of past theoretical and empirical literature, we hypothesized four main dimensions,
two of which were considered to be relatively healthy or adaptive (affiliative and self-
enhancing humor) and two relatively unhealthy and potentially detrimental (aggres-
sive and self-defeating humor).
Affiliative humor refers to the tendency to say funny things, to tell jokes, and to
engage in spontaneous witty banter, in order to amuse others, to facilitate relation-
ships, and to reduce interpersonal tensions (e.g., "I enjoy making people laugh"). This
is hypothesized to be an essentially nonhostile, tolerant use of humor that is affirm-
ing of self and others and presumably enhances interpersonal cohesiveness. Self-
enhancing humor refers to the tendency to maintain a humorous outlook on life even
when one is not with other people, to be frequently amused by the incongruities of
life, to maintain a humorous perspective even in the face of stress or adversity, and to
use humor in coping (e.g., "My humorous outlook on life keeps me from getting
overly upset or depressed about things"). This humor style is closely related to the
construct assessed by the earlier Coping Humor Scale.
On the other hand, aggressive humor is the tendency to use humor for the purpose
of criticizing or manipulating others, as in sarcasm, teasing, ridicule, derision, or dis-
paragement humor, as well as the use of potentially offensive (e.g., racist or sexist)
forms of humor (e.g., "If someone makes a mistake, I will often tease them about it").
It also includes the compulsive expression of humor even when it is socially inappro-
priate. This type of humor is viewed as a means of enhancing the self at the expense
of one's relationships with others.
Finally, self-defeating humor involves the use of excessively self-disparaging humor,
attempts to amuse others by doing or saying funny things at one's own expense, and
laughing along with others when being ridiculed or disparaged (e.g., "I often try to
make people like or accept me more by saying something funny about my own weak-
nesses, blunders, or faults"). Thus, it deals with the use of humor to ingratiate oneself
with others, as discussed in Chapter 5. It also involves the use of humor as a form of
defensive denial, to hide one's underlying negative feelings or avoid dealing con-
structively with problems. This style of humor is seen as an attempt to gain the atten-
tion and approval of others at one's own expense.
It is important to note that, although the HSQ assesses the way people "use"
humor in their everyday lives, no assumption was made that these uses are consciously
or strategically chosen. Instead, we assumed that people tend to engage in humor
quite spontaneously and are often unaware of its social or psychological functions in
a given situation. Thus, the items had to be worded quite carefully to address the
7 • PERSONALITY APPROACHES TO THE SENSE OF HUMOR
relevant functions indirectly, much like items on a self-report measure of defense
mechanisms.
The HSQ was developed using construct-based test construction procedures over
a series of studies with fairly large samples of participants ranging in age from 14 to
87 years (R. A. Martin et al., 2003). This methodology resulted in four stable factors
that were corroborated by means of confirmatory factor analysis. The final measure
contains four eight-item scales, each of which has demonstrated good internal
consistency. The HSQ has been translated into a number of languages and adminis-
tered to participants in various countries in North and South America, Europe, and
Asia, and the four-factor structure has been replicated in all cultures studied to date
(Chen and Martin, in press; Kazarian and Martin, 2004; in press; Saroglou and Scariot,
2002).
With regard to relationships among the scales themselves, moderate correlations
are typically found between self-enhancing and affiliative humor and between aggres-
sive and self-defeating humor, indicating that the two positive and the two negative
styles of humor, while conceptually and empirically distinguishable, tend to covary.
In addition, aggressive humor tends to be weakly correlated with both affiliative and
self-enhancing humor, suggesting that even positive styles of humor may include some
aggressive elements.
Research conducted to date has provided promising evidence for the construct
validity of each scale, as well as discriminant validity among the four scales (P. Doris,
2004; Kazarian and Martin, 2004; Kuiper et al., 2004; R. A. Martin et al., 2003;
Saroglou and Scariot, 2002). For example, scores on each of the scales have been found
to correlate significantly with peer ratings of the corresponding dimensions. The affil-
iative and self-enhancing humor scales also tend to be positively correlated with other
well-validated self-report humor measures such as the SHQ, SHRQ, and CHS,
whereas the aggressive and self-defeating humor scales are generally unrelated to
other humor measures, indicating that these two presumably detrimental styles of
humor are not well-measured with other tests.
One self-report measure, the Multidimensional Sense of Humor Scale (MSHS;
Thorson and Powell, 199 3 a) has been shown to be significantly positively correlated
with all four HSQ scales, indicating that this earlier humor test does not distinguish
between potentially beneficial and detrimental uses of humor, making it somewhat
less useful for investigating the role of humor in mental health. Not surprisingly,
scores on the self-enhancing humor scale tend to be quite strongly correlated with
scores on the conceptually similar Coping Humor Scale (Kuiper et al., 2004). Since
the self-enhancing humor scale has better reliability than the CHS, this newer
measure seems to be a better instrument for use in research on humor as a coping
mechanism.
With regard to other personality and mood variables, the two measures of
"healthy" styles of humor are generally positively related to indicators of psycholog-
ical health and well-being such as self-esteem, positive emotions, optimism, social
support, and intimacy; and negatively related to negative moods such as depression
and anxiety. In contrast, aggressive humor is positively correlated with measures of
SELF-REPORT MEASURES OF SENSE OF HUMOR DIMENSIONS
hostility and aggression and negatively correlated with relationship satisfaction. Sim-
ilarly, self-defeating humor is positively related to measures of psychological distress
and dysfunction, including depression, anxiety, hostility, and psychiatric symptoms,
and negatively related with self-esteem, psychological well-being, social support, and
relationship satisfaction. These findings support the view that the different humor
styles are differentially related to aspects of psychological well-being.
The four scales have also been found to correlate differentially with measures of
the FFM, which posits five major dimensions accounting for most of the variance in
personality traits (R. A. Martin et al., 2003; Saroglou and Scariot, 2002). Although
there were some differences in the patterns of correlations found among English-
speaking Canadian and French-speaking Belgian participants, extraversion was gen-
erally found to be positively correlated with affiliative, aggressive, and (more weakly)
self-enhancing humor, but unrelated to self-defeating humor. Neuroticism, on the
other hand, was unrelated to affiliative humor, negatively related to self-enhancing
humor, and positively related to both aggressive and self-defeating humor. In turn,
affiliative and self-enhancing humor were both positively correlated with openness to
experience, while aggressive and self-defeating humor were both negatively correlated
with agreeableness and conscientiousness. Thus, these four styles of humor appear to
be located in quite different regions of the personality space represented by the FFM,
suggesting that they represent disparate ways in which people with differing person-
ality traits express and experience humor in their everyday lives.
Some research has also begun to explore relationships between the HSQ scales
and measures of culture-related personality traits such as individualism and collec-
tivism (Kazarian and Martin, 2004; in press). In general, affiliative humor appears to
be related to the cultural orientation of collectivism (which emphasizes the interde-
pendence of individuals with respect to broader social groups), whereas aggressive
humor is more related to individualism (which views individual needs as taking prece-
dence over group needs). Further cross-cultural research is needed to determine
whether the HSQ dimensions reflect different styles of humor found in people from
different cultures. For example, Western cultures, which tend to be more individual-
istic, might be expected to have more aggressive humor styles, whereas people from
more collectivistic Eastern cultures may be higher on affiliative humor.
Interestingly, although negligible differences are found between men and women
on the two presumably positive styles of humor, males tend to have significantly higher
scores than females on the two presumably detrimental humor styles, suggesting that
men tend to use negative forms of humor more than women do (cf. Crawford and
Gressley, 1991). Older participants have been found to obtain lower scores than
younger people on both affiliative and aggressive humor, suggesting that people may
have a decreasing tendency to engage in these more extraverted types of humor as
they age. Among women, self-enhancing humor was found to be higher for older than
younger individuals, suggesting an increase in this coping style of humor with greater
age and life experience. Longitudinal research is needed, however, to test whether
these observed age differences are due to developmental changes over the lifespan or
to cohort effects.
7 • PERSONALITY APPROACHES TO THE SENSE OF HUMOR
Overall, then, the HSQ assesses dimensions of humor that are not tapped by pre-
vious tests and, in particular, it is the first self-report measure to assess social and psy-
chological functions of humor that are less desirable and potentially detrimental to
well-being. In Chapter 9, 1 will discuss additional research that has used this measure
in the study of humor and mental health.
The State-Trait Cheerfulness Inventory
When we say that someone has a good sense of humor, we may mean that the
person tends to maintain a cheerful mood and a nonserious, playful attitude much of
the time, even in situations where other people might be likely to become distressed.
This way of conceptualizing sense of humor, which focuses on the emotional com-
ponent and the playful, nonserious character of humor, was proposed some time ago
by Howard Leventhal and Martin Safer (1977). More recently, Willibald Ruch and
his colleagues have adopted this perspective in their investigations of trait cheerful-
ness, which they view as the temperamental basis of sense of humor (for a review, see
Ruch and Kohler, 1998).
In this view, individual differences in sense of humor are based on presumably
innate, habitual differences in cheerfulness, seriousness, and bad mood. While each
of these can be viewed as temporary states or moods, individuals are assumed to differ
in traitlike ways with regard to how consistently they experience these states. Trait
cheerfulness is an affective trait or temperament involving a prevalence of cheerful
mood and mirth, a generally good-humored interaction style, a tendency to smile and
laugh easily, and a composed view of adverse life circumstances. Trait seriousness (versus
playfulness) is a habitual frame of mind or mental attitude toward the world, com-
prising a tendency to perceive even everyday events as important, a tendency to plan
ahead and set long-range goals, a preference for activities that have a rational purpose,
and a sober, straightforward communication style that avoids exaggeration and irony.
In Michael Apter's (2001) terminology (discussed in Chapters 1, 3, 4, and 5), this
relates to the degree to which people tend to be in the telic (serious, goal-oriented)
versus the paratelic (playful, activity-oriented) mode. Individuals who would typically
be viewed as having a sense of humor would be those who are low on this trait. Trait
bad mood is an affective disposition involving a prevalence of sad, despondent, and dis-
tressed moods; a generally ill-humored interaction style (sullen, grumpy, grouchy);
and a negative response to cheerfulness-evoking situations and people. Again, high-
humor people would tend to be low on this dimension.
Ruch and his colleagues constructed the trait form of the State-Trait Cheerful-
ness Inventory (STCI-T) to assess individual differences in habitual cheerfulness,
seriousness, and bad mood (Ruch, Kohler, and Van Thriel, 1996). These scales have
been shown to have good internal consistencies and test-retest reliabilities. Factor
analyses on data obtained in several countries have consistently confirmed the exis-
tence of the three distinct factors. Cheerfulness tends to be weakly negatively corre-
lated with seriousness and moderately negatively correlated with bad mood, while
seriousness and bad mood are weakly positively correlated. A state version of the State-
SELF-REPORT MEASURES OF SENSE OF HUMOR DIMENSIONS
Trait-Cheerfulness Inventory (STCI-S) was also constructed to assess the presence of
each of the three mood states over shorter periods of time (Ruch, Kohler, and van
Thriel, 1997).
A number of studies have demonstrated good validity for the STCI-T. Scores on
each of the three trait scales were significantly correlated with peer ratings of the same
dimensions (Ruch, Kohler, et al., 1996) and with the corresponding mood states as
measured by the STCI-S (Ruch and Kohler, 1999). Studies have also shown that indi-
viduals with high scores on the trait cheerfulness scale, as compared to those with low
scores, are less likely to develop a depressed mood and serious frame of mind when
they are exposed to negative mood induction procedures such as reading a melan-
choly story or engaging in a series of boring tasks in a depressing, windowless room
with black walls and poor lighting (Ruch and Kohler, 1998, 1999).
Similarly, individuals with high trait cheerfulness scores, as compared to those
with low scores, are also more likely to smile and laugh (showing the Duchenne
display of genuine mirth) and to have enhanced feelings of state cheerfulness in mirth-
inducing situations, such as inhalation of nitrous oxide (laughing gas), exposure to a
clowning experimenter, or the sudden, unexpected appearance of a jack-in-the-box
(Ruch, 1997; Ruch and Kohler, 1998). These findings provide support for the valid-
ity of trait cheerfulness as representing a habitually high threshold for negative moods
and a low threshold for mirth, laughter, and positive moods in general.
To examine the validity of the trait seriousness scale of the STCI-T, participants
in one study were instructed to create humorous captions for a series of cartoons. As
predicted, individuals with lower scores on trait seriousness (indicating greater habit-
ual playfulness) were found to create a greater number of humorous captions, and
their captions were rated as more funny, witty, and original (Ruch and Kohler, 1998).
On Ruch's 3WD measure of humor appreciation, individuals with low (as opposed
to high) seriousness scores tended to prefer nonsense over incongruity-resolution
humor. In addition, higher seriousness scores were related to higher aversiveness
ratings for all types of humor, indicating that more serious individuals are more likely
to reject all forms of humor (Ruch and Kohler, 1998). These findings provided support
for (low) trait seriousness as a general attitude or frame of mind characterized by a
more playful perspective and a greater receptiveness to humor.
Studies have also examined the relationships between the STCI-T scales and
more general personality dimensions such as the FFM, and models of positive and
negative affectivity (Ruch and Kohler, 1998). Overall, cheerfulness was associated with
extraversion/energy, agreeableness/friendliness, emotional stability/low neuroticism,
and positive affectivity. Thus high trait cheerfulness is a characteristic of agreeable,
stable, extraverted types. Bad mood, in contrast, showed the opposite pattern of cor-
relations, but with a stronger contribution of neuroticism and negative affectivity and
a weaker loading on extraversion and positive affectivity. Thus, bad mood is charac-
teristic of disagreeable, neurotic introverts. Finally, seriousness was consistently asso-
ciated with low psychoticism/conscientiousness and introversion.
In summary, this temperament-based approach provides an interesting perspec-
tive on the meaning of sense of humor. In this view, individuals who are typically
7 • PERSONALITY APPROACHES TO THE SENSE OF HUMOR
described as having a "good sense of humor" tend to be people who are habitually in
a cheerful mood, who maintain a playful, nonserious attitude toward life, and who are
infrequently in a bad, grouchy mood. Different styles of humor may have to do with
different combinations of the three traits. For example, an acerbic, caustic sense of
humor might involve low seriousness, moderate cheerfulness, and high bad mood. On
the other hand, people who are easily amused at others' humor but not very witty
themselves might be high on cheerfulness, low on bad mood, and relatively high on
seriousness.
Since trait cheerfulness has been shown to be a predictor of robustness of posi-
tive mood in experimental studies, this construct also seems to be a potentially useful
way of conceptualizing sense of humor as a trait that contributes to coping with stress
and enhancing psychological health. As Ruch and Kohler (1998, p. 228) suggested,
individuals who are high on trait cheerfulness may "have a better 'psychological
immune system,' protecting them against the negative impact of the annoyances and
mishaps they meet in everyday life and enabling them to maintain good humor under
adversity." This measure would therefore likely be useful in research on physical and
mental health benefits of humor, particularly in the context of humor as resilience to
psychosocial stress.
SENSE OF HUMOR AS AN ABILITY
Some conceptualizations of sense of humor view it as a form of creative ability
or aptitude. In this approach, the ability to perceive humorous incongruities, to create
jokes, funny stories, and other humorous productions, and to make other people laugh
is viewed as a skill, like the ability to draw a picture or solve a math problem. Indi-
viduals who are gifted with this creative talent are presumably the amateur comedi-
ans who keep their friends "in stitches" and are the "life of the party," while the
supremely talented few may become professional comedians and comedy writers. This
conception of sense of humor seems to be most appropriately measured by means of
ability tests that assess maximal performance, rather than the typical behavior assessed
by self-report scales. This approach has been taken by a few researchers over the years.
Alan Feingold, a researcher affiliated with Yale University, has long been a pro-
ponent of the view of sense of humor as a kind of aptitude. Feingold (1982, 1983)
developed tests of humor perceptiveness and humor achievement comprising ques-
tions about joke knowledge, in which participants were required to complete famous
jokes (e.g., "Take my wife, "; Answer: "please") and identify the names of
comedians associated with particular jokes (e.g., "I get no respect" linked with Rodney
Dangerfield). Respondents' scores on these tests were based on the number of ques-
tions that were answered correctly. Scores on this test were positively correlated with
intelligence, and (not surprisingly) individuals with high scores were found to be avid
viewers of comedy television shows.
Feingold and Mazzella (1991) expanded on this earlier work, developing addi-
tional tests to assess two proposed types of verbal humor ability or wittiness: (1)
SENSE OF HUMOR AS AN ABILITY
memory for humor, which they hypothesized to be akin to crystallized intelligence; and
(2) humor cognition, thought to be comparable to fluid intelligence. Memory for humor
was assessed by tests of humor information and joke knowledge (similar to Feingold's
earlier measure of humor perceptiveness), while humor cognition was measured with
tests of humor reasoning and joke comprehension. Again, these were all maximal per-
formance tests in which scores were based on the number of correct answers. Their
research findings revealed significant correlations between traditional measures of
verbal intelligence and the tests of humor cognition, whereas memory for humor was
not strongly related to intelligence. Humor reasoning was also correlated with the
Remote Associates Test, a measure of creative thinking.
In a subsequent article, Feingold and Mazzella (1993) suggested that verbal wit-
tiness may be viewed as a multidimensional construct composed of the mental ability
dimension of humor cognition, in combination with social and temperamental factors
influencing humor motivation and communication. Overall, then, Feingold and
Mazzella's conceptualization of humor ability appears to be a fairly narrow construct,
relating particularly to individuals' familiarity with well-known jokes and popular
comedians. However, the psychometric properties of their measures are not
well-established, and they have not gained wide acceptance among other humor
researchers.
Other humor production tests have been developed by researchers over the years
to examine individual differences in the ability to create or produce humor. Most of
these were designed for use in individual studies, and they have typically not been
standardized. In this approach, research participants are typically presented with
various stimuli, such as caption-removed cartoons or silent movies, and are instructed
to make up as many funny responses as they can to go with these stimuli. The fun-
niness of their responses is then rated by the experimenters, yielding a score for humor
production ability. Some of these studies have examined the relationship between
humor production ability and various other personality traits.
For example, Robert Turner (1980) examined the association between humor pro-
duction ability and self-monitoring, a personality trait having to do with the degree
to which individuals are sensitive to environmental cues of social appropriateness and
regulate their behavior accordingly. Humor ability was assessed in two ways. In one
of these, participants were asked to make up witty captions to go with a series of car-
toons in which the original captions had been removed. In the second method, par-
ticipants were seated at a table on which were placed a number of miscellaneous
objects, such as a tennis shoe, a wristwatch, and a box of crayons. The participants
were instructed to create a three-minute comedy monologue, describing these
objects in a funny way, after being given only 30 seconds to collect their thoughts.
In both methods, the participants' humorous productions were rated by judges for
wittiness.
The results revealed that, as predicted, individuals with higher scores on a
measure of self-monitoring, as compared to those with lower scores, produced
responses that were rated as significantly more witty on both humor production tests.
The author suggested that the tendency to attend to and respond to social cues and
7 • PERSONALITY APPROACHES TO THE SENSE OF HUMOR
the reactions of others enables people who are high in self-monitoring to develop skill
in creating and delivering humor successfully over the course of their lives. In con-
trast, those who are low in self-monitoring, because they do not attend as much to
the responses of others, do not learn as readily from those responses and therefore
do not develop as much skill at producing humor. Consistent with these results, other
research has found a positive correlation between self-monitoring and a self-report
measure of the tendency to initiate humor in social interactions (Bell, McGhee, and
Duffey, 1986). Thus, self-monitoring may be an important personality trait that con-
tributes to the development of the ability to produce humor. These findings suggest
that humor creativity should be viewed as a type of social skill (see also Dewitte and
Verguts, 2001, for a similar selectionist account of sense of humor development).
Other researchers have used similar humor creation tests to examine the as-
sociation between humor production ability and more general forms of creativity
(reviewed by O'Quin and Derks, 1997). As discussed in Chapter 4, a number of the-
orists have noted close connections between humor and creativity, pointing out that
both involve divergent thinking, incongruity, surprise, and novelty (Ferris, 1972;
Murdock and Ganim, 1993; Treadwell, 1970; Wicker, 1985; Ziv, 1980). For example,
Arthur Koestler (1964) considered humor, scientific discovery, and artistic creation
(all of which involve the process of bisociation) to be forms of creativity.
Researchers investigating these hypotheses have assessed participants' humor cre-
ation abilities by rating the funniness of their responses to a variety of tasks, includ-
ing creating humorous captions for cartoons (Babad, 1974; Brodzinsky and Rubien,
1976; Ziv, 1980) and TAT cards (Day and Langevin, 1969), generating witty word
associations (Hauck and Thomas, 1972), and making up funny presidential campaign
slogans (Clabby, 1980). In general, these studies revealed positive but moderate cor-
relations between these funniness ratings and a variety of measures of creativity,
including the Remote Associates Test (in which participants must identify a concept
that links two seemingly unrelated words) and tests in which participants are asked to
come up with unusual uses of a common object such as a brick. A meta-analysis of
this research found an average correlation of .34 between humor production ability
and creativity (O'Quin and Derks, 1997). These authors concluded that, although cre-
ativity and humor production do involve similar mental processes, they are nonethe-
less distinct. Whereas humorous productions are typically creative, individuals can be
creative without being funny.
How is humor production ability related to other dimensions of sense of humor?
As noted earlier, research has generally indicated little or no relation between mea-
sures of humor production and humor appreciation (Babad, 1974; Kohler and Ruch,
1996; Koppel and Sechrest, 1970), indicating that, somewhat surprisingly, people who
are able to create humor successfully do not necessarily enjoy or respond with amuse-
ment to various kinds of jokes and cartoons. On the other hand, some positive but
generally weak correlations have been found between measures of humor production
ability and several self-report humor scales, including the SHRQ, CHS, Metames-
sage Sensitivity scale of the SHQ, and (low) Seriousness scale of the STCI-T (Kohler
and Ruch, 1996; Lefcourt and Martin, 1986; Ruch, Kohler, et al, 1996).
SENSE OF HUMOR AS STYLES OF HUMOROUS CONDUCT
The use of ability measures of humor production is an approach that merits
further investigation. In addition to self-monitoring and creativity, this method would
seem to be useful for evaluating other variables besides self-monitoring and creativ-
ity (e.g., intelligence, tolerance for ambiguity, curiosity) that contribute to humor
production.
SENSE OF HUMOR AS STYLES OF HUMOROUS CONDUCT
When we say that someone has a sense of humor, we are implying that we have
frequently observed this person engaging in a variety of humor-related behaviors in
a range of situations. For example, we may have seen the person telling jokes or
humorous stories, making spontaneous witty comments, laughing at a variety of
amusing events, and so on. Based on these observations, we may also characterize the
person's overall humorous style in various ways, using descriptors such as reflective,
sarcastic, irreverent, or sardonic. Thus, the concept of sense of humor may be viewed
as a socially constructed description of a person's typical humor-related conduct. In
other words, sense of humor may be seen as a set of labels that we ascribe to people
based on our observations during our interactions with them. What are the basic
dimensions by which people classify different styles of humor in everyday conduct,
and what are the patterns of humor-related behaviors that are associated with these
different dimensions? These questions have been the focus of research conducted by
Kenneth Craik and his colleagues at the University of California at Berkeley (Craik,
Lampert, and Nelson, 1996; Craik and Ware, 1998).
To investigate the dimensions of humor based on observable behavior, Craik and
his colleagues began by developing a list of 100 descriptive statements that were
intended to capture all the important facets of the domain of everyday humorous
conduct (described by Craik and Ware, 1998). Examples of these descriptions include:
"Uses good-natured jests to put others at ease," "Has difficulty controlling the
urge to laugh in solemn situations," "Enjoys witticisms which are intellectually chal-
lenging," and "Spoils jokes by laughing before finishing them." Each of these state-
ments was then printed on a separate card to form the Humorous Behavior Q-sort
Deck (HBQD). Subsequent research with this card deck employed the standard q-
sort technique, in which observers are asked to sort the cards into a series of piles
indicating the degree to which each description is characteristic of a particular target
person.
In one study (described by Craik and Ware, 1998), participants were asked to sort
the cards to describe a hypothetical person with a high sense of humor. Correlations
among the card sorts of the participants revealed high agreement in the popular con-
ception of what it means for someone to have a sense of humor. Averaging across the
card sorts of all the subjects, the researchers were able to identify the humor styles
that are generally perceived to be positively and negatively associated with this
concept, as well as those that are seen as irrelevant. Positively related to the concept
of sense of humor were items having to do with good-natured wittiness, a cheerful
7 • PERSONALITY APPROACHES TO THE SENSE OF HUMOR
disposition, and skillful humor ability. Negatively associated items were those involv-
ing aggressive, inappropriate, and maladroit attempts at humor. Enjoyment of intel-
lectual wit and ethnic jokes, along with ingratiating uses of humor, were deemed to
be irrelevant to the concept. Thus, this method proved useful for exploring the way
most people typically conceptualize a sense of humor.
In another study (also described by Craik and Ware, 1998), participants were
asked to sort the HBQD cards to describe the styles of humor of several famous come-
dians, such as David Letterman, Woody Allen, and Bill Cosby. Again, good interrater
reliabilities were found. Correlations between the mean card sorts for different come-
dians were then computed to examine the degree to which their humor styles were
perceived to be similar. For example, Arsenio Hall and Whoopi Goldberg were per-
ceived to have fairly similar styles, whereas Woody Allen and Lucille Ball were less
similar. This ^-sort method could be a potentially useful technique for researchers to
use in quantifying the degree of similarity in humor styles between pairs of individ-
uals, such as married couples or friends. These similarity scores could then be corre-
lated with other relationship variables such as marital satisfaction or the long-term
stability of the friendships to examine the degree to which similarity in humor styles
contributes to these aspects of relationships.
To identify the major dimensions underlying different perceived styles of humor,
a large number of university students were asked to describe their own humor styles
using the HBQD, and these card sorts were then subjected to factor analysis (Craik
et al., 1996). This analysis revealed five bipolar factors, which were labeled as: (1)
socially warm versus cold; (2) reflective versus boorish; (3) competent versus inept; (4)
earthy versus repressed; and (5) benign versus mean-spirited humorous styles. It was
suggested that these five factors represent the major implicit dimensions by which
people characterize one another's sense of humor. In future research using this pro-
cedure, an individual's humorous style could be described (either by the individual or,
more preferably, by trained observers) by means of a card sort with the HBQD, and
factor scores for each of the five factors could be computed for that individual. These
scores could then be used in investigating their correlations with other personality,
social, and affective variables that might be of interest to the researcher.
As one example of such research, Craik and colleagues (1996) examined correla-
tions between factor scores on the (self-administered) HBQD and scores on a measure
of extraversion in a sample of university students. Greater extraversion (as compared
to introversion) was found to be associated with more socially warm and also more
boorish humor styles. The other three humor style factors were unrelated to
extraversion-introversion. Other studies examined correlations between the HBQD
factors and scores on the subscales of the California Psychological Inventory (Craik
et al., 1996) and the major personality dimensions of the FFM (Craik and Ware, 1998).
The results demonstrated that each of these general personality dimensions is char-
acterized by a unique constellation of humorous styles, suggesting that people with
different personality traits have different corresponding styles of humor. For example,
individuals who are high on the FFM dimension of agreeableness tend to be charac-
terized by a socially warm, competent, and benign humorous style. On the other hand,
HOW MANY DIFFERENT SENSES OF HUMOR EXIST?
neuroticism was associated with an inept (as opposed to competent) humor style.
Further research is needed to replicate these findings and explore relationships with
other personality constructs. In addition, this methodology may be useful for future
research investigating such questions as the role of different humorous styles in inter-
personal relationships, coping with stress, and mental health generally.
In summary, the HBQD represents a method for investigating sense of humor
that takes a different perspective than the approaches using humor appreciation, self-
report, and humor production measures. However, research using this approach has
been quite limited so far, and its potential utility for exploring other facets of sense
of humor remains largely unexplored. An initial step that seems necessary for future
research is to determine the stability and replicability of the identified factors. In this
regard, a recent factor analytic study of the items from the HBQD did not replicate
the original factor structure (Kirsh and Kuiper, 2003), although this may have been
due to the use of a self-rating format using Likert scales rather the original q-sort
method. Because it was originally developed for use by trained observers, the use of
the HBQD in a self-report format also seems questionable. Many of the items appear
to be difficult to understand by untrained raters and many refer to behaviors that are
not readily accessible to self-observation (e.g., "Enhances humorous impact with a
deft sense of timing;" "Delights in the implicit buffoonery of the over-pompous").
Nonetheless, this approach, when used as originally intended, appears to be a poten-
tially interesting avenue for future investigations.
HOW MANY DIFFERENT SENSES OF HUMOR EXIST?
As we saw at the beginning of this chapter, most people seem to think of sense
of humor as a unitary construct, although its meaning in popular usage tends to be
quite vague and ill-defined. Over the years, personality researchers have attempted to
clarify and refine the meaning of this concept, defining and measuring it in a number
of different ways. In the current state of the literature, with the proliferation of meas-
urement instruments over recent years, sense of humor seems to comprise a plethora
of apparently distinct trait dimensions. There are three factors of humor appreciation
measured with the 3WD, numerous constructs measured by many different self-
report humor tests, five styles of humorous conduct assessed by the HBQD, and an
unknown number of components of humor production ability. After starting out with
a seemingly simple idea, sense of humor turns out to be exceedingly complicated!
Do we really need this many different trait concepts, however, to meaningfully
describe individual differences in humor? It would seem to be desirable for personal-
ity psychologists to identify the degree to which all these different traits are inter-
correlated and to determine whether individual differences in humor can be captured
using a more parsimonious set of basic dimensions. To answer these questions,
researchers should ideally administer all the existing measures to large samples of indi-
viduals representing a broad cross section of the population across different cultures.
Factor analyses could then be conducted on these data to identify the underlying
7 • PERSONALITY APPROACHES TO THE SENSE OF HUMOR
factor structure. This would be similar to the approach that was taken with person-
ality traits in the development of the FFM (John, 1990). Additional research could
then explore the relations between the identified core humor factors and broader per-
sonality dimensions such as the FFM to determine the degree to which sense of humor
dimensions overlap with known personality factors or are fairly unique. Only a limited
amount of research along these lines has been conducted so far, focusing primarily on
self-report measures.
Using data from a sample of German adults from the general population,
Willibald Ruch (1994) conducted a factor analysis of seven sense of humor scales from
four different self-report measures, including the SHRQ, CHS, SHQ, and Ziv's
(1981) measure of humor appreciation and creativity. Also included were the three
subscales of the Telic Dominance Scale (TDS) (Murgatroyd et al., 1978), which relate
to seriousmindedness, planfulness, and arousal avoidance (i.e., the inverse of a habit-
ually playful, humorous frame of mind). This analysis yielded only two factors. All
the sense of humor scales loaded highly positively on the first factor, which was ten-
tatively labeled cheerfulness. This finding suggests that these different self-report tests,
although they were designed to measure different components or aspects of sense of
humor, actually all assess a common underlying dimension. The second factor, labeled
restraint versus expressiveness, was found to be related only to the SHRQ, the Emo-
tional Expressiveness scale of Svebak's SHQ, and (in the opposite direction) the
subscales of the TDS.
To explore these dimensions further, Ruch examined the relations of these two
humor factors, as well as each of the individual humor scales, with the three super-
factors of extraversion, neuroticism, and psychoticism, which were viewed by Eysenck
(1990) as being the most basic, biologically based temperament dimensions of per-
sonality. All of the sense of humor scales loaded positively on extraversion, as did the
first (cheerfulness) factor found in the factor analysis. Thus, these self-report humor
scales all appear to relate primarily to the general personality dimension of extraver-
sion, which comprises traits such as sociable, lively, active, assertive, sensation-seeking,
carefree, dominant, and the tendency to experience positive moods. Overall, a sense
of humor seems to be a characteristic of extraverts rather than introverts. In addition,
the SHRQ and Emotional Expressiveness scale of the SHQ (along with the second
overall humor factor) loaded positively on the psychoticism dimension, which, among
other traits, relates to low impulse control. This relationship is likely due to items on
the SHRQ and SHQ-E scales that describe laughing in situations in which laughter
is not typically seen to be appropriate.
Somewhat surprisingly, none of the humor scales were strongly loaded on the
neuroticism dimension, with only a weak negative loading for the SHQ-M scale.
Thus, individuals with high scores on these humor scales do not necessarily experi-
ence less negative emotions than do those with low humor scores. Contrary to popular
opinion, people with a strong sense of humor, as measured by these self-report scales,
are not necessarily very emotionally stable and well-adjusted. Overall, this study indi-
cated that the various self-report humor scales do not assess substantially different
humor dimensions, but instead form one main factor that is quite strongly related to
PERSONALITY CHARACTERISTICS OF PROFESSIONAL HUMORISTS
extraversion. Ruch suggested that measures of humor appreciation and the ability to
produce humor are likely not related to these temperament dimensions, although he
did not test this assumption in this study.
In a later study, Gabriele Kohler and Willibald Ruch (1996) conducted a similar
factor analysis of 23 humor-related self-report scales using another sample of German
adults. In addition to the scales used in the previous study, this analysis also included
the cheerfulness and seriousness facet subscales of the STCI-T, the Multidimensional
Sense of Humor Scale (MSHS; Thorson and Powell, 1993a), and the Humor Initia-
tion Scale (HIS; Bell et al., 1986). Once again, only two factors were found. The first
factor, again labeled cheerfulness, had strong loadings for all the scales except for the
seriousness facet subscales of the STCI-T. The second factor, labeled seriousness, had
strong positive loadings for the STCI-T seriousness scales, and generally weak neg-
ative loadings for most of the remaining humor scales.
The authors concluded that these results provided support for Ruch's model of
the temperament basis of sense of humor (discussed earlier). Most self-report humor
tests appear to relate strongly to trait cheerfulness, and they also tend to capture a
low seriousness or playfulness component to varying degrees. Once again, the first
factor was found to be strongly related to extraversion, and in this study it was also
somewhat negatively related to neuroticism. In addition, the second factor was again
related to psychoticism, with greater psychoticism being associated with lower seri-
ousness, or greater playfulness. Thus, most of the variance in self-report humor scales
seems to be captured by the Eysenckian temperament dimensions of extraversion and
psychoticism and, less so, by (low) neuroticism.
This study also included measures of humor appreciation (the 3 WD) and a test
of humor production ability (a cartoon captioning task), although unfortunately these
were not included in the factor analysis. Correlational analyses revealed that, as in
previous research, humor appreciation and humor production measures were unre-
lated to each other. In addition, self-report measures purporting to assess humor
appreciation were only weakly correlated with the 3WD appreciation scores, while
self-report scales designed to assess humor production were generally unrelated to the
rated funniness of participants' cartoon humor productions (with the exception of the
SHQ-M scale). Overall, these findings suggest that three distinct humor constructs
are assessed by measures of (1) humor appreciation (the 3WD), (2) humor produc-
tion, and (3) self-report scales, with the latter measures reflecting the two broad
dimensions of cheerfulness and, to varying degrees, (low) seriousness. Further
research is needed to replicate these findings with other populations and to include
newer humor measures, such as the HSQ and the HBQD.
PERSONALITY CHARACTERISTICS OF PROFESSIONAL HUMORISTS
Do professional comedians have particular personality traits that differ from those
of other people? One commonly held belief is that comedians tend to be depressive
individuals who hide their dysphoria behind a mask of superficial hilarity. An old story
7 • PERSONALITY APPROACHES TO THE SENSE OF HUMOR
tells of a man going to a doctor to complain of feelings of depression and despon-
dency. The doctor encourages him to attend a performance of a famous comedian
who is extremely funny and will be sure to lift his spirits. The patient replies that he
is that comedian.
Two studies have investigated the personality traits of professional comedians.
Taking a psychoanalytic approach, Samuel Janus (1975, 1978) studied the intelligence,
educational level, family background, and personality structure of 55 male and 14
female comedians, all of whom were said to be famous and successful. Data were col-
lected using clinical interviews, early memories, dreams, handwriting analyses, pro-
jective tests, and the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS). Based on his
interpretations of these data, Janus concluded that comedians tended to be superior
in intelligence, angry, suspicious, and depressed. In addition, their early lives were
characterized by suffering, isolation, and feelings of deprivation, and they used humor
as a defense against anxiety, converting their feelings of suppressed rage from physi-
cal to verbal aggression.
Many of the comedians were also described as shy, sensitive, and empathic indi-
viduals whose comedic success was due in part to an ability to accurately perceive the
fears and needs of their audiences. Overall, these findings appear to provide support
for the popular view of professional comedians as generally unhappy people. However,
the validity of the results is questionable, due to the use of some dubious assessment
methods and the lack of a control group, making it difficult to know whether these
characteristics are unique to comedians or may be shared, for example, by noncomic
entertainers.
Seymour Fisher and Rhoda Fisher (1981) conducted a more well-controlled study
of the personality characteristics and childhood memories of 43 professional comedi-
ans and circus clowns (whom they designated collectively as "comics"). To control for
possible non-comedy-related variables involved in being a public performer, these
researchers included an age-matched comparison sample of professional actors. They
administered a semistructured interview, the Rorschach inkblot test, the TAT, and
several standardized personality questionnaires to all participants.
The two groups did not differ on measures of depression or overall psychologi-
cal health, casting doubt on the view that comedians are more psychologically dis-
turbed than other people. However, a number of interesting statistically significant
differences did emerge between the two groups. Compared to the actors, the comics'
responses revealed a significantly greater preoccupation with themes of good and evil,
unworthiness, self-deprecation, duty and responsibility, concealment, and smallness.
In addition, the comics, as compared to the actors, described their fathers in more
positive terms and their mothers in a more negative manner. These findings suggested
that their comic tendencies may have originated in early family dynamics.
Most of these professional comics indicated that they had developed their
comedic abilities early in childhood, and many had been "class clowns" in school. In
order to investigate further the possible childhood dynamics involved in becoming a
comic, Fisher and Fisher conducted another study in which they used self-report ques-
tionnaires to compare the personality characteristics and attitudes of the parents of a
CONCLUSION
group of children identified as class clowns with the parents of children who did not
show these comic characteristics. Compared to the mothers of noncomic children,
personality testing revealed that the mothers of the comic children were significantly
less kind, less sympathetic, less close and intimately involved with their children, and
more selfish and controlling, and that they wanted their children to take responsibil-
ity and grow up more quickly. For their part, the fathers of the comic children were
more passive than those of the noncomic children.
On the basis of the combined findings from these two studies, Fisher and Fisher
theorized that professional comics develop their humor skills in childhood as a means
of entertaining others, gaining approval, and asserting their goodness, in the context
of a relatively uncongenial family environment characterized by limited maternal
affection and warmth, a need to take on adult responsibilities at an early age, and a
sense that things often are not what they appear to be on the surface. Moreover, as
children they tend to take on a parentified healing role, learning to provide psycho-
logical support and reassurance to their parents by means of a humorous persona. By
making their parents laugh at their funny antics, they are able to gain the attention
and approval of otherwise unaffectionate and rejecting parents. Thus, humor in these
individuals seems to be a means of coping with feelings of anxiety and anger associ-
ated with a generally harsh and uncongenial family environment.
Overall, then, although this research does not support the popular view that pro-
fessional comedians are depressed or otherwise psychologically disturbed, it does
suggest that humor in these individuals serves as a defense or coping mechanism for
dealing with adversity in early life. The well-honed comedic skills required for a suc-
cessful career as a comic may well be developed as a means of compensating for earlier
psychological losses and difficulties. As we will see in Chapter 8, similar mechanisms
may be involved in the development of a comic sense of humor in at least some ordi-
nary individuals who do not become professional comedians.
CONCLUSION
A sense of humor is seen by most people as an important personality character-
istic. It is one of the main dimensions by which people tend to characterize others,
and is viewed as a very desirable trait in potential friends and romantic partners
(Sprecher and Regan, 2002). But what exactly is sense of humor? As we have seen,
this concept has taken on many positive connotations over the years, while becoming
increasingly vague and ill-defined. The research reviewed in this chapter suggests that
sense of humor is not a unitary construct. Instead, it can be conceptualized and mea-
sured in a number of different ways, each focusing on different aspects of humor. Fur-
thermore, these different ways of defining it are not necessarily highly correlated with
one another, and they relate in quite different ways to other personality traits.
Research with a variety of different sense of humor measures is beginning to
clarify the nature and correlates of these humor-related traits, showing how they
interact with other dimensions of personality and behavior. With regard to the humor
7 • PERSONALITY APPROACHES TO THE SENSE OF HUMOR
appreciation approach, Ruch's work with the 3WD has contributed a great deal to
our understanding of individual differences in the enjoyment of humor in the form
of jokes and cartoons. Interestingly, this research demonstrates that individual differ-
ences in humor appreciation have more to do with structural aspects than with the
content or topic of the jokes, contrary to the assumptions of many past researchers.
These investigations have also uncovered some very interesting correlations between
these structural humor appreciation dimensions and a variety of more general per-
sonality traits, showing that the types of humor that individuals enjoy reflect their
levels of conservative versus liberal social attitudes, sensation seeking, toughminded-
ness, and so on.
Other researchers have taken an ability approach to sense of humor, denning it
in terms of the ability to produce humor and amuse others. People who do well on
these types of tests presumably excel in the cognitive abilities needed to generate the
sorts of nonserious incongruities that are the hallmark of humor. Research using this
approach indicates that individuals who are more aware of and responsive to the reac-
tions of others to their own behavior (i.e., those who are high in self-monitoring), as
well as those who are generally more creative and capable of divergent thinking,
tend to be better at producing humor and making others laugh. Thus, an aptitude
for humor production may be viewed as a type of social skill as well as a creative
ability.
The many different self-report measures that have been created in recent years
were designed to assess different components or aspects of sense of humor. A con-
siderable amount of evidence for reliability and validity has been found for several of
these measures. However, factor analytic research suggests that most of these self-
report scales load on only one or two major factors. The strongest factor has to do
with a cheerful temperament and an extraverted, sociable disposition, while the other
involves a playful, nonserious attitude. These dimensions provide support for Ruch's
temperament model of sense of humor, and also reflect the social, emotional, and cog-
nitive components of humor that I have discussed at earlier points in this book.
Until recently, a limitation of self-report humor measures has been their unique
focus on positive, desirable aspects of humor. The HSQ represents a more recent ten-
dency among researchers to consider also more negative and socially undesirable func-
tions of humor in social interaction. As we will see in Chapter 9, researchers have
recently begun to explore the implications of these and other negative humor styles
for interpersonal relationships and psychological well-being. The HBQD represents
another potentially interesting method of investigating individual differences in
humor styles using q-sort ratings by observers. This method appears to be particu-
larly useful for examining popular conceptions of what a sense of humor is, as well as
providing a method for quantifying similarities and differences in humor styles
between individuals and examining relationships between various humor styles and
other personality traits and behaviors.
One view that seems to be emerging in the research is that different personality
traits are reflected in different humor dimensions. In other words, people express their
particular personality traits through their humor. Thus, it may be that extraverts
CONCLUSION
express humor in different ways and enjoy different types of humor than do intro-
verts. Similarly, more agreeable people tend to have a friendly style of humor, while
hostile individuals tend to use humor in more aggressive ways. Other styles of humor
may be differentially associated with neuroticism versus emotional stability, as well as
openness and conscientiousness.
In summary, a considerable amount of research has been conducted on various
dimensions of sense of humor as a personality trait, providing a growing scientific
understanding of this ubiquitous tendency of humans to play with language and ideas.
In the following chapters, I will discuss research investigating how these various com-
ponents of sense of humor develop during childhood, and how they relate to aspects
of psychological and physical health.
CHAPTER 8
We
'e have seen in previous chapters that
humor is a complex phenomenon involving a range of psychological functions. These
include cognitive processes relating to perception, language, concept formation,
memory, problem solving, and creativity; play and emotion; social relationships and
communication; and biological processes taking place in the brain and extending into
other parts of the body. Although nearly everyone engages in humor to some degree,
individuals differ from one another in their humor comprehension and production,
the types of humor that they enjoy, and the way they use and express humor in their
daily lives. In this chapter, we will see that all these psychological aspects of humor
begin to emerge soon after birth and continue to develop over the course of child-
hood and into adulthood.
What are the typical patterns of humor development in children? How do chil-
dren's developing cognitive, social, and emotional capacities interact with their ability
to understand, enjoy, and produce humor? What are the contributions of genetic and
social environmental factors to the development of individual differences in children's
sense of humor, and how does a sense of humor influence the child's cognitive, social,
and emotional functioning? How does humor change over the course of adulthood,
and what are the changing social and emotional functions of humor in later life?
These and other related questions have been the focus of a considerable body of
research that has accumulated over the past 40 years on the developmental
psychology of humor.
229
THE DEVELOPMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY OF HUMOR
Developmental psychologists make use of empirical research methods to study
psychological development over the life span. Employing a variety of research
methods, including observational studies, experiments, surveys, and case studies, and
using retrospective, cross-sectional, and longitudinal designs, they seek to understand
the processes of change in cognition, language, emotion, social functioning, and so
forth. Developmental psychologists take a multifaceted perspective, recognizing that
psychological development involves a complex interplay of genetics, biology, parental
and family influences, and other social environment factors. All these aspects of psy-
chological development in general apply as well to the development of humor. In this
chapter, I will discuss theories and research findings on the developmental psychol-
ogy of humor, examining the development of smiling and laughter in infancy and early
childhood, the origins of humor in children's play, the relation between humor and
cognitive development, humor as emotional coping in childhood and adolescence,
social aspects of humor development, individual differences in humor, and humor in
later adulthood and old age.
SMILING AND LAUGHTER IN INFANCY AND EARLY CHILDHOOD
Infants typically begin to smile during their first month, initially in response to
tactile stimulation (e.g., tickling, rubbing the skin) accompanied by the sound of a
caregiver's voice, and a month or so later in response to visual stimuli such as moving
objects and lights. In the following months, babies begin to smile when they recog-
nize objects such as the general configuration of a face and, eventually, the faces of
specific individuals such as their parents or siblings, indicating that they have devel-
oped a cognitive schema, or mental representation, of that object. Smiling appears to
be most likely to occur when an optimal amount of effort (not too little or too much)
is required for recognition (McGhee, 1979).
Laughter first appears in the context of infant-caregiver interaction sometime
between 10 and 20 weeks of age, and it quickly becomes a frequent part of the inter-
actions between infants and their caregivers. Researchers have observed that young
infants typically produce one to four laughs in a ten-minute face-to-face play session
with their mother (Fogel et al., 1997). In an early study at the University of Min-
nesota, Alan Sroufe and Jane Wunsch (1972) investigated the stimuli that trigger
laughter during the first year of life by having mothers engage in a variety of behav-
iors with their infants, such as making lip-popping sounds, tickling, displaying unusual
facial expressions, and playing peek-a-boo games. They found that laughter occurs
with increasing frequency and in response to a greater variety of maternal behaviors
over the course of the year. The types of stimuli producing laughter also change over
the year. Tactile and auditory stimuli that produce relatively high rates of laughter at
7 or 8 months (e.g., kissing on the bare stomach or making the sound of a horse) are
less likely to do so by 12 months. In turn, visual and social actions (e.g., walking with
an exaggerated waddle, or the "I'm going to get you" game) are more likely to induce
laughter at 12 months than at 8 months. The authors noted that the stimuli that
SMILING AND LAUGHTER IN INFANCY AND EARLY CHILDHOOD 23
become most effective in inducing laughter with increasing age are those that seem
to make the greatest cognitive demands on the infant.
Overall, the actions that trigger laughter seem to be ones that are unexpected or
incongruous with regard to the child's developing cognitive schemas. When the
mother walks like a penguin, sucks on a baby bottle, or dangles a piece of cloth from
her mouth, these actions deviate from the familiar behavior that the infant has come
to expect. Based on these observations, Sroufe and Wunsch proposed an incongruity-
based cognitive-arousal theory of laughter in infants. They suggested that laughter
occurs in response to an unexpected or incongruous event, which is appropriate to
the infant's cognitive level but does not mesh with his or her developing schemas.
Such incongruous events initially attract the attention of the child, inducing efforts
at information processing, and producing accompanying physiological arousal. If the
infant's interpretation of the event is negative due to feelings of insecurity or percep-
tions of threat, he or she will cry and engage in avoidance behaviors; however, if the
interpretation is positive, due to perceptions of a safe and playful environment, he or
she will smile or laugh and engage in approach behaviors.
The authors noted that their data provided little support for the ambivalence view
of laughter that has been proposed by some theorists, according to which laughter is
associated with a concurrent mixture of both positive and negative emotions. Instead,
they observed that, although an infant might first respond to an incongruous stimu-
lus with some apprehension and hesitation, once laughter begins the affective tone
seems to be purely positive and is accompanied only by approach behaviors rather
than vacillation. Thus, laughter in infants appears to occur in response to the per-
ception of an incongruous object or event in a safe, playful, and nonthreatening social
context. As noted in Chapter 4, contemporary theories suggest that the perception of
nonserious incongruity is also the basis of humor in adults.
Some later experiments used the "peek-a-boo" game to investigate various factors
that influence the amount of smiling and laughter exhibited by infants in response to
incongruous events. In this game, a familiar person hides his or her face for a few
seconds and then suddenly reappears in front of the infant, saying "peek-a-boo!" while
smiling and making eye contact with the infant. Infants between 6 and 12 months fre-
quently smile and laugh upon seeing the person reappear. The disappearance and
reappearance of a familiar face in a playful context seems to be particularly enjoyable
to infants when they are in the process of mastering "object permanence," the recog-
nition that objects continue to exist even when they are not visible to the child (Shultz,
1976).
One study (MacDonald and Silverman, 1978) showed that one-year-old children
are more likely to smile and laugh in response to this game when it is carried out by
their mother as compared to a stranger (indicating the importance of familiarity and
perceptions of security) and when the mother rapidly approaches them during the
game rather than moving away from them (indicating the importance of increasing
arousal).
Gerrod Parrott and Henry Gleitman (1989), at Georgetown University, investi-
gated the role of expectations in six- to eight-month-old infants' enjoyment by
THE DEVELOPMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY OF HUMOR
inserting occasional "trick trials" in a series of standard peek-a-boo trials. In these
trick trials, one person would hide and a different person would reappear in his or
her place, or else the same person would reappear but in a different location than in
the standard trials. The results showed that the infants smiled and laughed much less
frequently in response to the trick trials than the standard trials, whereas the trick
trials produced more eyebrow-raising, indicating surprise or puzzlement instead of
amusement.
These findings suggest that infants at this age have well-formed expectations
about the identity and location of the returning person, and that conformity to these
expectations contributes to their enjoyment of the game, whereas large deviations
from expectations induce puzzlement rather than enjoyment. The authors suggested
that when deviations from expectations are too great, the infant is unable to "resolve"
the incongruity by assimilating it into an overarching schema, thereby making sense
of it in some way. Thus infants, like older children and adults, are not always amused
by just any sort of incongruity or deviation from their expectations, but prefer devi-
ations that can be reinterpreted in a way that makes sense. In addition to these cog-
nitive aspects, the trick trials, being so deviant from the infants' experience, might
have induced a serious, nonplayful reaction of puzzlement in the infants, interfering
with the playful state of mind that is required for humor.
The importance of social factors in laughter was demonstrated by a study that
found that infants never smiled or laughed in response to an impersonal analogue of
the peek-a-boo game in which a toy, instead of a person, was made to disappear and
suddenly reappear, whereas they frequently smiled and laughed in response to a person
playing the game (Shultz, 1976). Thus, laughter right from its inception tends to be
a form of social communication. Infant laughter typically occurs during interactions
with parents and other caregivers, who in turn tend to laugh in response to the
infants.
More recent research by Evangeline Nwokah and her colleagues at Purdue Uni-
versity have investigated in greater detail the social nature of laughter as a means of
communicating emotional information between infants and caregivers (Fogel et al.,
1997; Nwokah and Fogel, 1993; Nwokah et al., 1999; Nwokah et al., 1994). For
example, Nwokah and colleagues (1994) conducted a longitudinal study in which they
observed the laughter of mothers and their infants during free play sessions over the
first two years of the infants' lives, to examine the timing and temporal sequence of
laughter in interpersonal interaction. They found that infant laughter increased in
frequency over the first year and remained fairly stable during the second year (aver-
aging about .3 laughs per minute by age two), whereas the rate of laughter in the
mothers remained quite stable over the two years (at about .55 laughs per minute).
By the second year, the rate and duration of laughter was significantly correlated
between mothers and infants, meaning that the more a particular mother laughed, the
more her infant laughed. Thus, laughter appears to be modeled by the mother during
the first year and stabilizes in the infant by the second year.
By the time the infant is one year of age, both mother and infant can anticipate
that by altering their tone of voice, facial expressions, and actions, they can induce
SMILING AND LAUGHTER IN INFANCY AND EARLY CHILDHOOD 23
laughter in each other. For example, by engaging in incongruous behaviors such as
putting a toy on her head, the mother can encourage laughter in the infant, although
the likelihood of laughter also depends on such factors as the timing, element of sur-
prise, emotional state of both the mother and infant, and attention of the infant (Fogel
et al., 1997). Thus, laughter is clearly a social process, serving an emotional commu-
nication function.
As children progress into the preschool or nursery school years, their laughter
occurs increasingly in the context of playful interactions with other children in addi-
tion to caregivers. Charlene Bainum and her colleagues at the University of Tennessee
observed groups of three-, four-, and five-year-old children in a nursery school to
investigate laughing and smiling during structured and unstructured play (Bainum,
Lounsbury, and Pollio, 1984). No differences were found between girls and boys in
the overall frequency of smiling and laughter across the three age groups. The social
nature of smiling and laughter was again clearly demonstrated by the fact that 95
percent of these behaviors occurred when children were interacting with others, and
only 5 percent occurred when alone. Laughter increased in frequency from age three
to five, whereas smiling decreased over this age span. By the age of five, children
laughed an average of 7.7 times per hour during play. Smiling and laughter in three-
year-olds occurred more often in response to amusing nonverbal actions (e.g., funny
faces or body movements), whereas in five-year-olds they appeared more frequently
in response to amusing verbal behaviors (e.g., funny comments, stories, songs, or
unusual word usage).
In all three age groups, laughter occurred most frequently in response to inten-
tional humor rather than events that were unintentionally funny. Interestingly, chil-
dren were somewhat more likely to laugh at the funny things they themselves said or
did, rather than the behavior of others, indicating that laughter was often used as a
signal to indicate that particular behaviors were meant to be fanny. Although the
majority of laughter occurred in response to socially positive or at least neutral humor-
ous behavior, there was an increase from ages three to five in the proportion of laugh-
ter occurring in response to socially negative behaviors such as teasing, shoving, or
ridicule.
Compared to laughter, smiling occurred in response to a wider variety of events,
especially incidental (not intentionally funny) events, although it also occurred along
with laughter in the context of intentional silliness/clowning events. Thus, although
some instances of smiling may be viewed as a diminished form of laughter, indicat-
ing a lower level of amusement, smiling also serves a broader range of social func-
tions than does laughter.
What are the acoustic characteristics of young children's laughter? Nwokah and
her colleagues (1993) conducted acoustical analyses of 50 samples of laughter emitted
by three-year-old children while interacting with their mothers. They identified four
distinct types of laughter in these children: (1) comment laughs, comprising a single
laughter syllable or note with a fundamental frequency (pitch) close to that of normal
speech, and lasting about 200 milliseconds; (2) chuckle laughs, consisting of either one
note with two peaks or two notes, with a somewhat higher pitch and a total duration
THE DEVELOPMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY OF HUMOR
of about 500 milliseconds; (3) rhythmical laughter, comprising three or more notes with
a similar fundamental frequency as the chuckle and more complex harmonic struc-
ture, lasting 1 to 1.5 sec; and (4) squeal laughter, involving a single note of about 500
milliseconds duration with a very high-pitched fundamental frequency.
The duration of individual notes or syllables within all the different kinds of
laughs (with the exception of squeal laughter) was very similar to that found in adult
laughter (approximately 200 to 220 milliseconds). Some minor differences in acoustic
structure were observed between children's and adults' laughter, largely due to chil-
dren having less control over the vocal apparatus. The authors concluded that differ-
ent kinds of laughs are used to communicate different degrees of emotional intensity
as well as qualitatively different emotional experiences. For example, chuckle laugh-
ter often occurs in response to an accomplishment on the part of the child, whereas
rhythmical laughter tends to occur in a wide variety of high-arousal social contexts,
often where both partners are laughing.
HUMOR AND PLAY
As we have seen in earlier chapters of this book, humor is closely related to play.
Research on laughter in chimpanzees and other animals, discussed in Chapter 6, sug-
gests that the evolutionary origins of laughter arise in the context of rough-and-
tumble social play. Developmental psychologists studying humor have also noted that
laughter and humor develop in human children in the context of play (see Figure 6),
and many view humor as a particular form of mental play (Barnett, 1990, 1991;
Bergen, 1998b, 2002, 2003; McGhee, 1979).
What exactly is play? Although there is little agreement among play researchers
and theorists about how to define this nebulous concept, most would agree that it is
an enjoyable, spontaneous activity that is carried out for its own sake with no obvious
immediate biological purpose (Berlyne, 1969). Michael Apter (1982) suggested that
play is best viewed as a state of mind rather than a characteristic of certain types of
activities. Thus, one can engage in almost any activity in a playful way, as long as one
has a nonserious, activity-oriented (rather than goal-oriented) mental set.
There are many similarities between humor and play (Bergen, 2002). Laughter
and play both emerge at a similar age in infants (around four to six months), and both
are facilitated by similar social contexts. Humor and play are both enjoyable, and they
share similar characteristics regarding motivation, control, and reality. They both
involve an "as if" attitude, they are enjoyed for their own sake without having an
obvious serious purpose, and they both occur in safe settings with people who are
trusted. They also both seem to involve consolidation and mastery of newly acquired
skills and concepts. Moreover, children are socialized into play and humor by their
caregivers in similar ways and in similar contexts. Just as parents initiate their infant
children into the "play frame," teaching them to recognize the verbalizations and
behaviors that signal "this is play," parents also teach their children the meaning of
HUMOR AND PLAY
23
FIGURE 6 Humor develops during childhood in the context of social play. © SW
Productions/Getty Images/Brand X Pictures
the "humor frame" by means of facial expressions, behavioral and vocal exaggerations,
and verbal labels indicating "this is funny."
Doris Bergen (1998a), a developmental psychologist at Miami University in Ohio,
asked parents of children from ages one to seven to keep a record of the events that
the children themselves perceived to be funny. Most of the reported examples of chil-
dren's humor took place in the context of play and involved playful manipulations of
language and actions. Common examples included: expressed joy in mastery and
movement play (e.g., tickling games, chasing), clowning (e.g., exaggerated facial or
bodily movements or voices), performing incongruous actions (e.g., rolling up a red
placemat and pretending to eat it as a "Fruit Roll"), and playing with sounds and word
meanings (e.g., chanting or singing nonsense words).
The close connection between humor and play is also reflected in research
showing that children with a greater sense of humor tend to engage in more play in
general. Lynn Barnett (1990) developed a measure for assessing children's playfulness
in which sense of humor is included as one of the subscales. The sense of humor scale
THE DEVELOPMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY OF HUMOR
includes items relating to the frequency of joking, playful teasing, telling funny stories,
and laughing with other children. In addition to humor, the measure, which was
designed to be used by adult observers to rate children's playfulness, also includes
scales for physical, social, and cognitive spontaneity and manifest joy. Research with
this measure has shown that the sense of humor scale is significantly correlated with
a number of other measures of general playfulness in children, lending further support
to the close link between humor and play (Barnett, 1991). Similarly, a study of humor
in nursery school children by Paul McGhee and Sally Lloyd (1982) showed that the
strongest predictor of children's verbal and behavioral humor initiation and laughter
responsiveness was the frequency with which they engaged in social play.
Although humor and play are closely related, they are not exactly the same thing.
A small child dressing up in her mother's fancy dress and high-heeled shoes and
putting on lipstick may be engaging in enjoyable make-believe play, but she does not
necessarily find it to be humorous or "funny." However, if she puts the dress on back-
wards, wears the shoes on her hands, or gives herself a clown face with the lipstick,
she might perceive this to be humorous and expect other people to laugh at it as well.
Thus, humor involves a greater degree of incongruity, bizarreness, exaggeration, or
discrepancy from the way things normally are, along with a playful attitude.
At what point in a child's development can we say that humor first diverges from
other forms of play? When we see a six-month-old infant laughing in response to the
peek-a-boo game, it is tempting to assume that he or she is experiencing humor;
however, according to some researchers, this is not necessarily the case. Laughter in
infants and young children might be used to communicate a variety of positive emo-
tions, and not just humor. When then do children begin to laugh at things that are
"funny" and not just "fun"? This has been a topic of some controversy among devel-
opmental psychologists.
According to Martha Wolfenstein (1954), an early psychoanalytically-oriented
researcher of humor in children, humor does not emerge until sometime in the second
year of life, when make-believe play becomes differentiated into two strands, which
she called "serious" make-believe and "joking" make-believe. In both kinds of make-
believe, the child pretends that something is real, but knows that it is not. In serious
make-believe, the focus is on the pretense or illusion of reality, whereas in joking
make-believe the emphasis is on the recognition of unreality. Thus, a child engaging
in serious make-believe play may become engrossed in taking on a role, pretending
to be a "mommy" or a "truck driver," and carrying out activities that closely resem-
ble those of a real mother or truck driver. In humor, however, the child will inten-
tionally distort reality, behaving in unusual or exaggerated ways with the intention of
causing someone to laugh.
Paul McGhee (1979), a prominent early developmental humor researcher, also
saw a close link between humor and make-believe play. His theory of humor devel-
opment was strongly influenced by the more general theory of cognitive development
formulated by the well-known Swiss psychologist Jean Piaget (1970). Similarly to
Wolfenstein, McGhee argued that genuine humor does not begin until the middle of
the second year of life, when children begin to develop the capacity for fantasy, pre-
HUMOR AND PLAY 237
tense, or make-believe play. This corresponds to the transition from the sensorimo-
tor stage to the preoperational stage in Piaget's theory. At this stage, children begin
to represent schemas internally instead of relying on direct manipulation of objects
to gain knowledge of the world (the concept of cognitive schemas was discussed in
Chapter 4).
The most significant achievement at this age is the ability to use symbols and
signs, including words, to represent other objects. According to Piagetian theory,
when a child perceives information that does not fit with his or her existing schema
about a particular object or event, he or she experiences incongruity. To make
sense of this incongruous information, the child normally either reinterprets the per-
ceived information to make it fit with the existing schema (assimilation, in Piaget's
terms), or modifies the schema so that it can incorporate the new information (accom-
modation). In this way, the incongruity is eliminated and the child's intelligence is
expanded.
According to McGhee (1979), these processes for making sense of events can
occur in two ways: either through "reality assimilation," which is more serious and
reality-based, or "fantasy assimilation," which is more playful and makes use of pre-
tense and make-believe. In the latter type of assimilation, which is the essence of
humor, the child responds to incongruity by playfully applying the wrong schemas to
objects, treating one object as if it were another one. In this way, children can create
experiences in their fantasy world that they know cannot take place in reality. Thus,
in McGhee's view, humor essentially involves the perception of an incongruity along
with fantasy assimilation.
For example, a child might pretend to comb her hair with a pencil, thus stretch-
ing the pencil schema to make it incorporate characteristics of a comb. The schema
is not permanently altered in fantasy assimilation, as it is in reality assimilation, but
is temporarily applied incorrectly. Based on developmental research by Piaget and
others, McGhee argued that children are not capable of this sort of fantasy assimila-
tion until they acquire the capacity for symbolic play at around 1 8 months of age. In
McGhee's view, then, the six-month-old infant who laughs in response to the peek-
a-boo game is not really experiencing humor, even though he or she may perceive the
situation to be incongruous and obviously enjoys it.
In contrast to both Wolfenstein and McGhee, developmental psychologists Diana
Pien and Mary Rothbart (1980) argued that symbolic play capacities and fantasy
assimilation are not necessary for the appreciation of humor. Instead, they proposed
that humor requires only the recognition of incongruity along with a playful inter-
pretation of that incongruity, and they argued that both these abilities are present by
the time infants first exhibit laughter, around the fourth month. Although infants at
this age do not have internalized mental schemas, they do develop sensory and motor
schemas based on their interactions with the physical world, and they are able to rec-
ognize events that are incongruous with respect to these developing schemas. In
support of their view, they cited the research by Sroufe and Wunsch (1972) described
earlier, which indicated that infants laugh in response to visual and social events that
involve discrepancy from familiar sensorimotor schemas.
THE DEVELOPMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY OF HUMOR
Although Pien and Rothbart agreed with McGhee (and Piaget) that make-believe
play does not begin until the preoperational stage, they pointed out that by four
months of age infants are capable of simple forms of playful behavior involving prac-
tice, exploratory, and manipulative play with objects; motor play; and social play (see
also Garner, 1998). Following Piaget, they defined play as actions that are carried out
for the pleasure of the activity alone, involving assimilation with little or no serious
attempt to accommodate existing schemas to fit a stimulus. They argued that this
ability to respond playfully is all that is necessary for incongruity to be perceived as
humorous. To respond to incongruity in a playful way, the infant merely needs to be
in a safe, nonthreatening environment. In Pien and Rothbart's view, then, a six-month-
old infant laughing at the peek-a-boo game is actually experiencing humor.
The question of when humor first occurs in infants may be impossible to resolve,
since it depends in part on how one defines humor. Perhaps the most we can say is
that humor originates in play and gradually becomes differentiated from other forms
of play as the child's cognitive abilities develop (Bergen, 2003). Most researchers
today seem to avoid the question of when humor begins in children, focusing on overt
behaviors like smiling and laughter and avoiding making inferences about subjective
cognitive experiences such as humor. Nonetheless, most would agree that by the
end of their second year, children are able to distinguish between humor and other
forms of play. This also becomes more evident as children's developing language skills
enable them to describe certain events as "funny" or "silly," in addition to laughing
at them.
HUMOR AND COGNITIVE DEVELOPMENT
As we have seen in this and earlier chapters, most researchers and theorists view
incongruity as an essential component of humor. Incongruity may be viewed as a devi-
ation or discrepancy from one's normal expectations. As discussed in Chapter 4, these
expectations are based on one's cognitive schemas, the mental representations stored
in memory. Children, as well as adults, tend to laugh at objects or events that do not
conform to their existing schemas. Since schemas gradually develop throughout child-
hood as the individual gains experience and familiarity with the world, the kinds of
objects and events that are perceived to be incongruous with respect to these
schemas — and therefore humorous — also change over time. Things that seem incon-
gruous and funny at an early age become mundane and less humorous at a later stage
of cognitive development, whereas the older child's more sophisticated schemas enable
him or her to perceive and enjoy new kinds of incongruity and more complex forms
of humor that are not comprehensible to the younger child. Thus, the development
of a sense of humor in children parallels their overall cognitive development. The
effects of cognitive development on humor comprehension and appreciation have
been the focus of a great deal of theoretical work and empirical research since the
early 1970s.
HUMOR AND COGNITIVE DEVELOPMENT 23'
McGhee's Four-Stage Model of Humor Development
Based on a variety of research findings, Paul McGhee (1979), then at Texas Tech
University, proposed four stages of humor development in children that correspond
to general trends in cognitive development. As we saw earlier, McGhee argued that
the appreciation of humor does not begin until the middle of the second year of life,
when children progress into the preoperational stage of cognitive development and
acquire the capacity for make-believe or fantasy play. The first stage of humor devel-
opment, which McGhee named incongruous actions toward objects, therefore begins at
this age. According to McGhee, children at this age are able to represent objects with
internal mental schemas, and their humor consists of playfully assimilating objects
into schemas to which they do not normally belong.
For example, a child might hold a leaf to her ear and begin talking to it as if it
were a telephone. The child's recognition of the inappropriateness of the action is an
important component of the humor: if the child simply misapplies a schema without
recognizing the error, this may provoke laughter in adult observers but not in the
child. Indeed, one way children often learn to behave in humorous ways is when their
inadvertent cognitive errors unintentionally produce laughter in their parents and
others. Once they discover that such incongruous actions can cause people to laugh,
they begin to intentionally engage in such behavior to evoke laughter in others
(Bariaud, 1988).
McGhee's second stage of humor development, called incongruous labeling of objects
and events, begins early in the third year, when the child is able to begin using lan-
guage in playful ways. At this stage, the humorous use of language involves mislabel-
ing objects or events. For example, children at this age may derive a great deal of
amusement from calling a dog a cat, a hand a foot, an eye a nose, and so on. The
child must understand the correct meaning of the word and must be aware that he or
she is applying it incorrectly for it to be perceived as humorous. Thus, the child's
mastery of the correct usage of the word seems to be the critical factor in determin-
ing when it will be misapplied in a playful manner to create humor.
The third humor stage, called conceptual incongruity, begins around three years of
age when, according to Piaget, the child begins to realize that words refer to classes
of objects or events that have certain key defining characteristics. Humor in this stage
involves the violation of one or more attributes of a concept rather than simply mis-
labeling it. For example, instead of simply finding it fanny to call a cat a dog, a child
at this stage might find humor in imagining or seeing a picture of a cat with more
than one head that says "moo" instead of "meow."
More recently, however, Johnson and Mervis (1997) questioned the cognitive
basis of the transition from stage two to stage three. They pointed out that the Piaget-
ian idea of a transition from "preconcepts" to "true concepts" at this age has not held
up well in the research on children's early conceptual development. Instead, infants'
prelinguistic categories have been shown to be based on the same principles as the
categories of adults. These authors suggested that the transition from stage two to
THE DEVELOPMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY OF HUMOR
stage three in McGhee's model may simply reflect a change in what children tend to
talk about. Children first learn names for objects, allowing them to create stage-two
humor involving mislabeling of objects. Later, they begin learning words for the
attributes of objects, leading to the enjoyment of stage-three humor involving incon-
gruous attributes.
During this time, children also develop more complex syntactic abilities, enabling
them to engage in various types of language play, including repetitious rhyming of
words and the creation of nonsense words (e.g., "ringo, dingo, bingo"). Children at
this age also begin to enjoy simple riddles, although those they typically tell may be
best described as "preriddles," since they follow the structure of riddles without
involving the play on words or concepts found in the true riddles enjoyed at a later
stage (Yalisove, 1978).
McGhee's fourth and final stage of humor development, called multiple meanings,
begins around seven years of age, when children progress from the preoperational to
the concrete operations stage in Piaget's theory of cognitive development (Piaget,
1970). Children in the concrete operations stage are able to manipulate schemas in
their minds, imagining the effects of various actions on objects (i.e., "operations")
without having to carry them out behaviorally. They are also able to understand con-
servation, recognizing that physical matter does not magically appear or disappear
despite changes in form. In addition, they are able to carry out reversibility of think-
ing, or the recognition that operations can be reversed so that their effects are nulli-
fied. Children at this stage also become less egocentric, and begin to be able to
recognize that other people's perspectives may be different from their own. All of
these cognitive abilities contribute to their ability to appreciate more sophisticated
kinds of humor that play with reality in more complex ways.
With regard to linguistic abilities, children at this stage begin to recognize the
ambiguity inherent in language at various levels, including phonology, morphology,
semantics, and syntax (Shultz and Pilon, 1973; Shultz and Robillard, 1980). They are
therefore able to enjoy the play on words and double meanings that are an important
component of many jokes and riddles (Whitt and Prentice, 1977; Yalisove, 1978). For
example, children at this age would be able to understand the double meaning
involved in the following riddle (McGhee, 1979, p. 77):
"Why did the old man tiptoe past the medicine cabinet?"
"Because he didn't want to wake up the sleeping pills."
In addition to understanding puns and other jokes based on double meanings and
language play, children at this age are able to understand other kinds of abstract humor
based on logical inconsistencies and requiring inferential thinking. Several studies by
McGhee (197 la, 1971b) showed that preoperational children had difficulty under-
standing the meaning of various jokes and cartoons containing abstract incongrui-
ties, whereas those who had achieved concrete operations demonstrated better
comprehension.
McGhee (1979) viewed stage four humor as the final stage in humor develop-
ment, noting that this type of humor continues to be enjoyed into adolescence and
HUMOR AND COGNITIVE DEVELOPMENT
adulthood. However, we might speculate that some further development takes place
with the onset of Piaget's formal operations stage beginning in early adolescence
(Piaget, 1970). In this stage, the individual's thinking becomes more abstract and is
governed more by logical principles than by perceptions and experiences. Individuals
at this age have a more flexible, critical, and abstract view of the world. They are able
to mentally manipulate more than two categories of variables at the same time, to
detect logical inconsistencies in a set of statements, to hypothesize logical sequences
of actions, and to anticipate future consequences of actions. All of these cognitive
capacities no doubt enable the individual to play with ideas and concepts at a more
abstract level than is possible in the concrete operations stage (Fiihr, 2001).
For example, individuals at this stage might begin to enjoy existential jokes about
the meaning of life, as well as jokes that play with traditional joke structures and forms.
In one study in which children were asked to produce their favorite riddle (Yalisove,
1978), those in grades two to seven tended to provide riddles based on language ambi-
guity (e.g., "Why do birds fly south? It's too far to walk"), whereas by grade ten they
were more likely to give absurdity-based riddles (e.g., "How can you fit six elephants
into a Volkswagen Beetle? Three in the front and three in the back"). Overall, then,
the cognitive development of humor may be viewed as the development of more
sophisticated mental structures and cognitive abilities with which the individual is able
to engage in the perception and creation of playful incongruities.
The Role of Incongruity and Resolution in Children's Humor
Thomas Shultz and his colleagues at McGill University in Montreal conducted
a number of early studies on the relationship between cognitive development and
humor appreciation (for a review, see Shultz, 1976). They based their research on the
incongruity-resolution theory of humor (discussed in Chapter 3), which proposes that
humor is composed of an incongruity that can be resolved in some way. This model
of humor is best illustrated by jokes, in which an incongruity in the punch line is typ-
ically resolved by reinterpreting some ambiguous information in the joke setup. These
researchers were particularly interested in the relative contribution of incongruity
and resolution to humor appreciation in children at different stages of cognitive
development.
In one study, Shultz and Horibe (1974) presented children in grades one to seven
with a series of intact and modified jokes. In some of the modified jokes, the incon-
gruity was removed, and in others the incongruity remained but the resolution was
removed. For example, one of the original jokes was the following:
Woman: Call me a cab.
Man: You're a cab.
The resolution-removed version of this joke was:
Woman: Call a cab for me.
Man: You're a cab.
The incongruity-removed version was:
Woman: Call me a cab.
Man: Yes, ma'am.
THE DEVELOPMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY OF HUMOR
The results of this study showed that, for children in grades three to seven, the orig-
inal jokes were perceived to be funnier than the resolution-removed jokes, which in
turn were funnier than the incongruity-removed jokes. However, for children in grade
one, there was no difference in perceived funniness between the original and
resolution-removed jokes, whereas both were funnier than the incongruity-removed
jokes. These results were interpreted as indicating that younger children find humor
in incongruity alone and do not require the incongruity to be resolved. Beginning
sometime between grades one and three, and presumably continuing into adulthood,
resolution of the incongruity becomes important for humor appreciation. This
conclusion was further supported by the fact that, when asked to explain the meaning
of the original jokes, children in grade one had great difficulty in comprehending joke
resolutions, particularly in identifying the hidden meaning of the ambiguity in the
joke setup.
The authors noted that the transition from enjoyment of incongruity alone to
resolvable incongruity seems to occur at about the same age when children typically
progress from the preoperational to the concrete operational stage of cognitive devel-
opment, suggesting that the increased mental abilities of this later stage may be nec-
essary for the child to appreciate and enjoy the resolution components of humor.
Thus, this transition from incongruity-only humor to incongruity-resolution humor
corresponds to the beginning of McGhee's fourth stage of humor development. The
conclusions drawn from this study were further supported by similar findings in
another study by Shultz (1974a) using humorous riddles instead of jokes.
A subsequent study at the University of Oregon by Diana Pien and Mary Roth-
bart (1976), however, cast some doubt on Shultz's conclusions. These researchers
pointed out that the types of jokes used in these studies were based on linguistic ambi-
guities that may have been too difficult for six-year-old children to understand. The
failure to appreciate resolution at this age may therefore simply have been due to com-
prehension difficulties with the particular stimuli used, rather than a reduced impor-
tance of resolution in humor generally. Indeed, these authors demonstrated that, when
simpler jokes and cartoons were used as stimuli, four- and five-year-old children were
able to understand resolution of incongruity and showed a preference for jokes con-
taining resolution rather than incongruity alone (see also similar findings by A. J.
Klein, 1985).
Pien and Rothbart reasoned that these findings were inconsistent with Shultz's
view that children progress from a stage of enjoying incongruity alone to the enjoy-
ment of incongruity plus resolution. They argued instead that incongruity with or
without resolution may be perceived as humorous at all ages from infancy to adult-
hood. This view seems to be consistent with more recent research findings. As noted
earlier, the "peek-a-boo" study by Parrott and Gleitman (1989) that included "trick"
trials suggested that some degree of resolution may be important for humor even in
infancy. On the other hand, Ruch's factor-analytic studies of jokes and cartoons that
were discussed in Chapter 7 (e.g., Ruch and Hehl, 1998) indicate that adults also can
enjoy humor containing incongruity without resolution (i.e., nonsense humor). Thus,
the presence or absence of resolution does not seem to be an important factor in
HUMORANDCOGNITIVEDEVELOPMENT 24
humor development, but instead characterizes two different kinds of humor across
the lifespan.
Moreover, as Bernard Lefort (1992) pointed out, jokes, riddles, and cartoons are
particular narrative forms that are communicated in a social context as a sort of game
between the teller and the listener. What Shultz called resolution may be better viewed
as a particular class of techniques used in these forms of verbal humor to simultane-
ously activate incongruous multiple schemas (see also Attardo, 1997). In other forms
of humor, such as spontaneous witticisms, these techniques may not be as necessary
for incongruous schema activation. As they gain experience with jokes, children learn
to organize their comprehension activity around this narrative framework, internal-
izing the traditional rules of the game. Thus, developmental research based on jokes
and riddles, such as the studies by Shultz and colleagues, may tell us more about chil-
dren's developing understanding of the traditional joke structure than about their
experience of humor more generally.
Humor and Cognitive Mastery
McGhee's model of humor development suggests that, once children have mas-
tered particular cognitive abilities, they soon begin to create humor by playing with
these abilities in incongruous ways. As McGhee (1983a, p. 115) put it, "Once a child
becomes confident of the normal relationship between stimulus elements or achieves
a new level of understanding through acquisition of new cognitive skills, he/she enjoys
distorting that knowledge or understanding in the guise of a joke." Evidence from a
number of studies of children's humor indicates that children particularly enjoy humor
that plays with concepts that they have only recently mastered, rather than those with
which they are very familiar (McGhee, 1974).
In an early study of humor and cognitive development, researchers at Yale Uni-
versity presented cartoons to children in the second, third, fourth, and fifth grades
(Zigler, Levine, and Gould, 1966). The researchers noted the degree to which the
children smiled and laughed in response to the cartoons, and also asked them to
explain the meaning of each cartoon. Not surprisingly, the children showed an increas-
ing comprehension of the cartoons across the four grades, with fifth-grade children
exhibiting the greatest understanding of the humor. However, the pattern of smiling
and laughter in response to the cartoons did not follow the same pattern. The fre-
quency of smiling and laughing increased from the second to the fourth grades, par-
alleling the children's increasing comprehension, but in the fifth grade there was a
steep drop to the level shown by children in the second grade. Thus, although they
understood the humor better, fifth-grade children did not find it nearly as funny as
did those in preceding grades. At this age, the cartoons seemed to be too simple and
therefore no longer amusing.
The authors proposed a "cognitive congruency" hypothesis to explain these find-
ings, suggesting an inverted- U relationship between cognitive difficulty and enjoy-
ment of humor. Cartoons that make too great a cognitive demand on a child are not
understood and are therefore not enjoyed, but those that make too little demand are
THE DEVELOPMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY OF HUMOR
not found to be funny, even though they may be understood. Thus, humorous stimuli
are enjoyed if they are congruent with the complexity of the child's cognitive schemas.
Further support for this hypothesis was found in a subsequent study by the same
authors in which cartoons with different levels of difficulty were administered to chil-
dren at three different grade levels (Zigler et al., 1967). Children at each grade level
preferred cartoons with an intermediate level of difficulty, and this optimal difficulty
level increased across the three grades.
Two experiments conducted by McGhee (1976) provided additional support for
this hypothesis. In the first study, children of varying ages were first assessed for their
ability to understand conservation of mass using standardized tests. Conservation of
mass refers to the recognition that objects, such as a piece of modeling clay, retain
the same mass even when they change shape. The children were then presented with
a series of jokes that were based on a humorous violation of conservation concepts.
The following is an example of such jokes:
Mr. Jones went into a restaurant and ordered a whole pizza for dinner. When the waiter asked him
if he wanted it cut into six or eight pieces, Mr. Jones said: "Oh, you'd better make it six! I could
never eat eight!"
Analyses of the participants' mnniness ratings of the jokes revealed a significant curvi-
linear effect, with the highest ratings being given by children who had just recently
acquired conservation skills, and lower ratings given both by those who had not yet
achieved conservation and by older children who had presumably attained these skills
several years earlier. A similar inverted- U pattern of results was obtained in the second
study, in which children were first tested for their understanding of the Piagetian
concept of class inclusion (the ability to recognize that an object can be a member of
more than one class at the same time), and were then presented with jokes that
involved a violation of this principle. Again, the jokes were rated as most funny
by the children who had just recently mastered the concept that was violated in the
jokes.
McGhee interpreted these findings as supportive of the cognitive congruency
hypothesis, suggesting that children derive the greatest pleasure from humor that
presents an optimal level of challenge to their cognitive structures. Humor that is too
difficult or too easy to understand is not enjoyed as much. The cognitive congruency
hypothesis was also supported by several studies examining associations between chil-
dren's cognitive development and their comprehension and enjoyment of humorous
riddles (Park, 1977; Prentice and Fathman, 1975; Whitt and Prentice, 1977; Yalisove,
1978).
Cognitive Development of Irony and Sarcasm
Most of the early empirical research on cognitive aspects of humor development
focused on children's comprehension and appreciation of "canned" forms of humor,
such as jokes, cartoons, and riddles. As I have noted in earlier chapters, these types of
humor are context-free and portable, and are therefore quite easy to study in the lab-
HUMOR AND COGNITIVE DEVELOPMENT 24
oratory. However, they represent only a small part of the humor encountered by chil-
dren (as well as adults) in everyday life (Bergen, 1998b; R. A. Martin and Kuiper,
1999). Most humor in childhood arises from spontaneous verbal and nonverbal behav-
iors during playful social interactions, such as wordplay, silly gestures and actions,
incongruous fantasy play, teasing, irony, sarcasm, and practical jokes (Bergen, 1998a;
Fabrizi and Pollio, 1987b; McGhee, 1980b). Investigation of these kinds of naturally
occurring humor poses greater challenges to researchers, since they depend more on
the constantly changing social context. Nonetheless, in recent years there has been
some research on the development of children's comprehension of certain types of
conversational humor, particularly irony and sarcasm (see Creusere, 1999, for a
review). This cognitive developmental research parallels the psycholinguistic research
on irony and sarcasm in adults that was discussed in Chapter 4.
As noted in Chapter 4, irony is a humorous figure of speech that is used to com-
municate indirectly a message that is the opposite of the literal meaning of a sentence.
For example, someone who says "What a beautiful day!" when the weather is cold
and stormy actually intends to communicate "What an awful day." Irony is also closely
related to sarcasm, which depends for its effect on "bitter, caustic, and other ironic
language that is usually directed against an individual" (Gibbs, 1986, p. 3). For
example, if someone says "You're so graceful" in response to someone tripping and
falling, this is an ironic statement that may also be sarcastic. On the other hand, irony
can also be used in making indirect compliments as well as criticisms. For example, a
high-achieving student who receives an A on a test might be told by a classmate,
"You'd better work harder next time!"
To understand and appreciate irony and sarcasm, children must develop the ability
to make several complex linguistic and social inferences. First, they need to recognize
that the intended meaning of the ironic statement is not the surface meaning, and
therefore they must learn to substitute the true meaning for the literal meaning. In
addition, they need to recognize the pragmatic (i.e., social and communicative) func-
tions of irony in speech. Two such functions have been identified by researchers. First,
irony is used to tinge or mute the implied criticism or praise, making the criticism
less negative and the compliment less positive than they would be using literal lan-
guage. Second, irony is used to convey humor, based on the incongruity between the
literal and implied meanings, and is therefore meant to be funny (Dews et al., 1995).
Developmental researchers have investigated how children develop an understanding
of these different aspects of irony.
A number of studies have shown that the ability to understand the intended
meaning of ironic statements does not develop in children until about age six (e.g.,
Creusere, 2000; de Groot et al., 1995; Winner et al., 1987). This comprehension
ability appears to depend on the development of a "theory of mind," or the ability to
infer a speaker's beliefs or intentions. In particular, to understand that a statement is
meant to be ironic, one needs to infer not only what the speaker actually intends, but
also that the speaker believes that the listener understands this implied meaning as
well. Failure to make these inferences will lead to a misinterpretation of the irony as
either a literally true statement or a lie.
THE DEVELOPMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY OF HUMOR
Kate Sullivan and her colleagues at the University of Massachusetts (Sullivan,
Winner, and Hopfield, 1995) found that children between five and eight years of age
were only able to distinguish between a lie and a humorous false statement in a
story if they had already developed the theory-of-mind ability to attribute second-
order ignorance (i.e., recognizing that one person in a story does not know what
another person knows). Interestingly, without this ability, even the presence of dif-
ferent vocal intonations in lies versus jokes did not enable children to recognize
that a joke was not intended as a lie. However, the more difficult theory-of-mind
ability to attribute second-order false belief (i.e., recognizing that one person in a
story misperceives what another person is thinking) was not needed for children to
be able to distinguish between a lie and a joke, indicating that only some aspects of a
theory of mind are necessary for irony comprehension (see also Winner and Leekam,
1991).
Other research has investigated the development of children's comprehension of
the pragmatic functions of irony. Shelly Dews and her colleagues (1996) at Boston
College conducted two studies to investigate children's understanding of the muting
function and humorous nature of ironic insults. In the first study, they presented
groups of five- and six-year-olds, eight- and nine-year-olds, and college students with
brief clips from television cartoons containing instances of ironic criticism, literal crit-
icism, and literal compliments. The participants were tested for their understanding
of the intended meanings of the statements, and were asked to rate them for mean-
ness and funniness.
Consistent with other research, children's ability to understanding the implied
meaning of the ironic criticisms was found to emerge between five and six years of
age. Interestingly, the results also showed that, as soon as they were able to under-
stand the meaning of ironic criticism, children recognized that it was less mean or
insulting than literal criticism, indicating an understanding of the muting function of
irony. However, an understanding of the humorous nature of irony apparently does
not develop until some time later. It was not until the eight- to nine-year-old age
range that children began to perceive ironic insults as being funnier than literal ones.
In turn, the college students gave even higher funniness ratings to the ironic insults,
suggesting that a full appreciation of the humorous aspects of irony may not develop
until adolescence or early adulthood.
The second study extended these findings by manipulating the degree to which
ironic criticisms were subtle or obvious, and the degree to which they were presented
in a deadpan or sarcastic tone of voice. The results showed that, at all ages, more
subtle forms of indirect irony are considered more insulting than are more obvious
and direct forms. However, adults find the subtler forms of irony funnier, while chil-
dren find the more obvious forms funnier. Thus, the appreciation that a meaner
remark can also be funnier appears to develop with age. The perceived meanness and
funniness of the ironic insults were also influenced by voice intonation. At all ages, a
sincere or deadpan intonation made the irony seem less insulting and funnier than
did a sarcastic intonation. A sarcastic tone of voice seems to convey annoyance,
whereas a deadpan or sincere intonation signals playfulness and humor.
HUMOR AS EMOTIONAL COPING 24
More recently, Melanie Harris and Penny Pexman (2003), at the University of
Calgary, investigated the development of children's understanding of the social func-
tions of ironic compliments as well as criticisms. Children ages five to eight were pre-
sented with puppet shows depicting ironic and literal criticisms and compliments. The
results with ironic and literal criticisms generally replicated the findings of Dews et
al. (1996), indicating that children recognize the muting function of ironic criticism
as soon as they begin understanding the implied meaning, but the recognition of
humor in ironic criticism does not begin until some time later. Indeed, even the older
children in this sample did not perceive the ironic criticism to be funny.
With regard to ironic compliments, the results revealed that only a minority of
children correctly interpreted the implied meaning, and the proportion of correct
responses did not increase between ages five and eight. Thus, comprehension of ironic
compliments seems to develop at a later age than comprehension of ironic criticisms.
One possible explanation for this finding is that children may be more likely to
encounter sarcasm than ironic compliments in their daily lives. Alternatively, it may
be because ironic compliments involve a double negation, which is likely more diffi-
cult to understand.
In addition, this study revealed that children rated ironic compliments as less nice
than literal compliments as soon as they were able to understand them, indicating
that, as with ironic criticism, the muting function of irony is recognized early on.
However, across all the age groups, there were no differences in the funniness ratings
of ironic and literal compliments, both of which were rated as being serious, indicat-
ing that the humorous aspects of ironic compliments are not appreciated by children
in this age range. Further research with children older than eight years of age is
needed to determine the age at which children begin to perceive humor in this form
of irony.
In summary, by investigating the development of children's comprehension of the
meaning and pragmatic functions of irony and sarcasm, researchers are beginning to
extend the study of cognitive aspects of humor development beyond canned jokes,
cartoons, and riddles, and into conversational forms of humor that frequently occur
in everyday interactions with others. These types of humor depend more on the social
context, and require an understanding of a variety of linguistic and social factors such
as speaker intentions, theory of mind, vocal intonation, and so on. In addition to irony
and sarcasm, further research is needed to explore the development of children's
ability to understand and appreciate other forms of verbal and nonverbal interper-
sonal humor. As well as furthering our understanding of children's humor develop-
ment, research in this area may yield interesting insights into the development of
social cognition more generally.
HUMOR AS EMOTIONAL COPING
Besides the cognitive aspects of humor, a number of developmental researchers
have suggested that humor serves as a method for children to cope with emotionally
THE DEVELOPMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY OF HUMOR
arousing and threatening topics. By joking and laughing about issues that normally
arouse feelings of anxiety and tension, children are able to feel less threatened and
gain a sense of mastery. As we have seen, Freud (1960 [1905]) suggested that jokes
are a way of expressing taboo topics relating to sex and aggression in a socially accept-
able manner, allowing the individual to release feelings of anxiety associated with these
topics. Similarly, Levine (1977) extended the idea of humor as a form of cognitive
mastery (discussed earlier) to suggest that humor and laughter are a way of asserting
mastery in emotional and interpersonal, as well as cognitive, domains.
In her psychoanalytically-based case studies of humor in children, Wolfenstein
(1954) noted that much of children's humor relates to potentially painful, anxiety-
arousing, or guilt-inducing topics such as death, violence, destruction, punishment,
illness, bodily functions, sexuality, and stupidity. By engaging in the playful fantasy of
humor, the child is able to transform a threatening situation into something to be
laughed at and enjoyed. Writing about play more generally, Sutton-Smith (2003) sug-
gested that "play can be defined as behavioral parody of emotional vulnerability
because it both mimics and inverts the primary emotions ironically" (p. 13). The
essential function of play, he suggested, "is to make fun of the emotional vulnerabil-
ities of anger, fear, shock, disgust, loneliness, and narcissism" (p. 13). Humor, as a
form of mental play, presumably serves these functions as well.
Loeb and Wood (1986) outlined a developmental model of humor based on
Erikson's eight stages of psychosocial development, suggesting that humor may be
one method of dealing with conflicts arising from the successive developmental crises
of trust versus mistrust, autonomy versus shame, initiative versus guilt, industry versus
inferiority, and so on. Similarly, Paul McGhee (1979) noted that the topics that chil-
dren are most likely to make jokes and laugh about at different ages are ones that are
commonly associated with tensions, conflicts, and anxieties at each stage of develop-
ment. For young children going through the trials and tribulations of toilet training,
when toilet-related activities and accidents increasingly become sources of emotional
tension, a great deal of laughter is generated by scatological humor relating to defe-
cation, urination, flatulence, and so on. The mere repetition of toilet-related words
("poo-poo," "pee-pee," "fart") is enough to produce howls of laughter.
As preschoolers become aware of and concerned about physical differences
between the sexes, this also becomes a topic for joking. Continuing feelings of con-
flict and tension about sexual activity throughout childhood and into adulthood con-
tribute to the ongoing popularity of sexual jokes. The strong emphasis placed on
intellectual achievement and rationality during the school years also produces anxi-
eties about intellectual performance, leading to a great deal of joking about stupidity
and irrational behavior. The use of humor to cope with potentially threatening topics
is also seen in the popularity among children and adolescents of "sick" jokes, "dead
baby" jokes, and "disgusting" or "gross-out" humor in movies and television programs
depicting flatulence, projectile vomiting, and other bodily functions (Herzog and
Bush, 1994; Herzog and Karafa, 1998; Oppliger and Zillmann, 1997).
Although a considerable amount of research has examined the role of humor in
coping in adults (which I will discuss in Chapter 9), empirical research on children's
use of humor in emotional coping is unfortunately very limited (R. A. Martin, 1989).
INTERPERSONAL ASPECTS OF HUMOR IN CHILDREN 249
Danish psychologist Martin Fiihr (2002) administered the Coping Humor Scale
(CHS) along with a questionnaire about the uses of humor in coping to 960 children
between the ages of 10 and 16 years. Factor analyses revealed three factors: (1) the
use of humor to cope with uncertainty and stress; (2) aggressive humor making fun
of others; and (3) humor as a means of improving one's mood. Boys were found to
use more aggressive forms of humor in coping, whereas girls were more likely to
report using humor as a mood booster. The use of humor for coping with uncertainty
and stress increased with age for both boys and girls. With increasing age, girls were
more likely to report using humor as a mood booster, whereas boys' reported use of
this function of humor decreased slightly. Further research is needed to examine the
effectiveness of different types of humor in coping with various sources of emotional
distress, as well as developmental changes in the use of humor for coping beginning
earlier in childhood.
INTERPERSONAL ASPECTS OF HUMOR IN CHILDREN
As we have seen, humor and laughter are essentially social phenomena. Infants
begin to laugh in the context of interactions with their caregivers, and most of the
laughter of preschool children occurs when they are with other children or adults.
The predominantly interpersonal nature of humor is also apparent as children
progress through the elementary and high school years. Besides being a form of play,
humor is an important aspect of interpersonal interaction and communication, serving
a variety of social functions (Chapman, Smith, and Foot, 1980). As noted in Chapter
5, the inherent incongruity and ambiguity of humor makes it useful for communi-
cating messages and influencing others in situations in which a more direct, serious
mode of communication might be problematic for a variety of reasons.
Simons and colleagues discussed a number of possible functions of humor in chil-
dren's social interactions from infancy through adolescence (Simons, McCluskey-
Fawcett, and Papini, 1986). In infants, humorous interactions with parents may play
a role in the development of attachment relationships, which have been shown to be
very important for later social and emotional development (Ainsworth, Bell, and
Stayton, 1991). Humor may be one way of coping with separation anxiety and assert-
ing oneself during the process of gaining greater autonomy during toddlerhood.
During middle childhood, it may be important for socialization, establishing and
maintaining peer groups, communicating and enforcing norms, and influencing
social status within groups. These functions continue into adolescence, where
humor also becomes important in negotiating sexual relationships. These ideas remain
largely speculative at present, however, as little research has been conducted on the
social functions of humor in children or the way these functions develop through
childhood and adolescence. Much of the early research on social aspects of humor
focused on how the presence of other children influences a child's perceptions of
humor. More recently, research on teasing has begun to address the social aspects of
aggressive types of humor. These research topics are discussed in the following
sections.
8 • THE DEVELOPMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY OF HUMOR
Social Influences on Humor Appreciation and Laughter
A considerable amount of research has shown that the amount of laughter that
children display in response to humor is influenced by various aspects of the social
situation. For example, the effects of modeling on children's laughter were demon-
strated by an experiment that found that preschool children laughed much more fre-
quently while listening to a humorous audiotape after they had observed another child
laughing at the same tape as compared to a condition in which the other child did
not laugh at the tape (G. E. Brown, Wheeler, and Cash, 1980).
In a series of experiments during the 1970s, Antony Chapman, at the University
of Wales, examined the effects of social context on humorous laughter in children (for
a review of this research, see Chapman, 1983). In one study (Chapman, 1973b), seven-
year-old children listened to a humorous audiotape on headphones either by them-
selves ("alone" condition), with a nonlistening companion of the same age and sex
("audience" condition), or with another child who was also listening to the same tape
("coaction" condition). The participants in the coaction condition laughed and smiled
more frequently and rated the tape as funnier than did those in the audience condi-
tion, who in turn displayed more mirth and higher funniness ratings than did those
in the alone condition. These results indicate that the perception and enjoyment of
humor are facilitated by the mere presence of another person, and even more so when
the other person also shares the humor experience.
A subsequent study showed that the amount of laughter exhibited by children
while listening to a humorous audiotape was directly related to the frequency of laugh-
ter in a companion (Chapman and Wright, 1976). Other experiments revealed that
children laughed and smiled more frequently at the tape when they were sitting closer
to the companion (Chapman, 197 5 a) and when they were sitting face-to-face with the
companion rather than back-to-back (Chapman, 1976). Another experiment showed
that children in small groups laugh and smile more at a humorous audiotape when
their companions look at them while laughing as compared to when they look at
someone else (Chapman, 1975b). These studies provide further evidence that laugh-
ter is primarily a form of social communication, and that sharing the social situation
with others facilitates the enjoyment of humor.
Teasing Among Children
Children become aware of the aggressive uses of humor at an early age. As early
as age three, the presence of aggressive verbal and nonverbal behavior is a potent
factor in determining children's perceptions of humor (Sinnott and Ross, 1976), and
aggression continues to be an important determinant of humor preferences through-
out childhood (Pinderhughes and Zigler, 1985). For example, by age three, boys show
a preference for humor that disparages girls rather than boys (McGhee and Lloyd,
1981). As soon as children begin to develop a strong positive sense of racial-ethnic
identity between three and six years of age, they begin to enjoy humor that dispar-
ages members of other racial-ethnic groups (McGhee and Duffey, 1983). Children
INTERPERSONAL ASPECTS OF HUMOR IN CHILDREN 2!
also learn at an early age about the coercive effects of humorous ridicule. By six years
of age, children will avoid behaviors for which they have observed others being
ridiculed in a humorous way (Bryant et al., 1983).
Teasing is an aggressive form of humor that occurs frequently in childhood.
According to Shapiro, Baumeister, and Kessler (1991), teasing comprises three com-
ponents: aggression, humor, and ambiguity (see also Keltner et al., 2001). As noted
in Chapter 5, the humorous and ambiguous nature of teasing allows the source to say
things that would be face-threatening and potentially unacceptable if communicated
in a serious mode, since the source can always say "I was just joking" if the commu-
nication is not well received by the target. The aggressive and humorous elements of
teasing may be combined in different proportions. When the aggressive component
predominates, teasing is perceived as more hostile and hurtful, whereas teasing con-
taining greater humor may be perceived as benign and enjoyed by the target as well
as the source.
Jeremy Shapiro and colleagues (1991), at the Child Guidance Center in Cleve-
land, asked children in grades three, five, and eight to describe their experiences of
teasing and being teased. The most commonly reported forms of teasing were making
fun of an attribute or behavior of the target (28 percent), calling the target humor-
ous names (25 percent), and simply laughing at the target (11 percent). The most
common topics of teasing were physical appearance (especially being fat), intellectual
performance (especially stupidity, but also being too smart in school), and physical
performance. The most common reasons given for teasing were retaliation (i.e.,
teasing in response to someone else's teasing) and playing or joking around. In addi-
tion, 5 1 percent of the participants identified aggressive bullies as the most frequent
teasers, whereas 23 percent identified popular, funny, lively children. The most fre-
quent targets of teasing were timid, physically small "losers," unpopular children,
overweight children, and children with lower intelligence. Thus, teasing seems to be
carried out by socially dominant children against those with less social status who do
not conform to group norms. Overall, teasing seems to be a way of asserting and main-
taining status within the peer group as well as censuring behaviors in others that
violate group norms.
A limited amount of research has examined developmental changes in the content
and form of teasing in childhood. Given the function of teasing as a way of enforc-
ing social norms, it is not surprising that developmental changes in teasing tend to
parallel changes in the types of norms that are most relevant at different ages, such
as possessiveness and aggression during the preschool years, associations with
members of the opposite sex during elementary school, fashion-related and dating
behavior in puberty, and behaviors related to experimentation with sex and drug use
during adolescence and early adulthood (Keltner et al., 2001; Warm, 1997).
The style of teasing also changes over the course of development. In particular,
teasing tends to become less blatantly aggressive, more humorous and playful, and
more subtle as individuals move from late childhood into adolescence (Keltner et al.,
2001; Warm, 1997). These changes may be partly related to developments in the com-
prehension of irony and sarcasm discussed earlier. As we saw, recognition of the
THE DEVELOPMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY OF HUMOR
humorous aspects of ironic language does not develop until late childhood and ado-
lescence, even though the potential for using irony to convey indirect criticism is rec-
ognized by age six. Younger children are therefore less able to employ playful language
cues such as the use of irony to mitigate the hostility of their teasing. As a result,
younger children's teasing tends to be more overtly hostile, hurtful, and insulting. Any
humor that is involved is often meant for the benefit of the witnesses at the expense
of the recipient (Scambler, Harris, and Milich, 1998).
These developmental changes in the style of teasing are also reflected in chil-
dren's perceptions of the functions and effects of teasing. Although children of all ages
emphasize the hurtful nature of teasing, older children and adolescents begin to rec-
ognize that it can sometimes also have positive functions and outcomes, such as point-
ing out undesirable behaviors in a playful way and indirectly communicating
acceptance and friendship (Shapiro et al., 1991; Warm, 1997).
Some researchers have investigated how children respond to teasing and have
attempted to identify the types of responses that might be most effective. In the survey
by Shapiro et al. (1991), the most common response to teasing reported by children
was reciprocating teasing with a verbal comeback or teasing of their own (39 percent),
followed by ignoring the teasing (24 percent), laughing along (12 percent), fighting
(10 percent), and reporting the teasing to an authority figure (4 percent). When teach-
ers were asked what they considered to be the most effective response to teasing, 91
percent recommended simply ignoring the teaser.
Douglas Scambler and colleagues (1998), at the University of Kentucky, con-
ducted an experiment in which they showed children between the ages of 8 and 1 1
one of three versions of a videotape in which a child responded in different ways to
being teased by other children: (1) ignoring; (2) an angry, hostile response; and (3) a
humorous response. The participants rated the humorous response as most likely to
be effective, followed by ignoring, with the hostile response being rated as least effec-
tive. Interestingly, the humorous response produced more positive evaluations of the
teaser as well as the recipient of the teasing. Thus, responding with humor may be
even more effective than ignoring, as it might defuse the conflict situation and poten-
tially turn it into a prosocial interaction. The authors suggested that children who are
frequent targets of teasing should be taught to practice lighthearted, humorous
responses to use in such situations. Similar results were obtained in a subsequent
experiment by Robin Lightner and colleagues that looked at empathic responding as
well as ignoring, humorous, and hostile reactions to teasing (Lightner et al., 2000).
Further research is needed to examine actual interactions, instead of artificial
scenarios, to capture the emotional elements in teasing situations and examine the
effectiveness of various responses with different types of teasing among children of
different ages and personality characteristics.
INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN CHILDREN'S SENSE OF HUMOR
So far in this chapter I have been discussing developmental changes in humor
that are characteristic of most children. However, children do not all develop a sense
INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN CHILDREN'S SENSE OF HUMOR
of humor to the same degree; the individual differences in humor that we discussed
in the previous chapter begin to emerge in early childhood. Besides studying norma-
tive trends in humor development, researchers have therefore also investigated the
ways children at a given age differ from one another in the degree to which they ini-
tiate and appreciate humor. Why do some children more than others develop a ten-
dency to laugh easily and frequently, a heightened enjoyment of humor, or an ability
to tell jokes and make others laugh? To what extent do genetic and environmental
factors influence the development of a sense of humor? How do parental behaviors
and the family environment contribute to humor development in children? What
other personality characteristics and behaviors are associated with a sense of humor
in children at various ages? These are some of the sorts of questions regarding indi-
vidual differences in children's humor that researchers have sought to answer.
As we saw in Chapter 7, sense of humor is not a unitary concept. Individual dif-
ferences in sense of humor can be conceptualized and measured in many different
ways, including differences in the frequency of laughter, ability to comprehend humor,
appreciation of various kinds of humorous stimuli, tendency to initiate humor and
make others laugh, and so on. These different definitions of sense of humor are
reflected in the various measurement approaches taken by different researchers in
studying individual differences in children's humor as well. Research findings that
relate to the development of one of these components of sense of humor do not nec-
essarily apply to others.
Genetic Factors in Sense of Humor
In recent decades, numerous twin studies have provided evidence that genetic
factors play a substantial role in individual differences in temperament and personal-
ity generally (Rowe, 1997). The general strategy in this research involves comparing
the correlations on a particular personality trait between pairs of monozygotic (i.e.,
identical) and dizygotic (i.e., fraternal) twins. A genetic contribution to the trait is
indicated when higher correlations are found in identical as compared to fraternal
twin pairs. Using multivariate statistical modeling procedures, the relative contribu-
tion of genetic as well as shared and nonshared environmental influences can be esti-
mated. Shared environmental influences are those that are experienced similarly by
both members of a twin pair, such as the general family environment, whereas non-
shared influences have to do with experiences that differ between a pair of twins both
within and outside the family. A few of these types of studies have been conducted to
examine the degree to which genetic and environmental factors may contribute to the
development of various aspects of the sense of humor.
David Nias and Glenn Wilson (1977), at the Institute of Psychiatry in London,
used the classic twin study methodology to investigate individual differences in humor
appreciation in 100 pairs of young adult identical and fraternal twins. The partici-
pants were asked to rate the funniness of 48 cartoons that had been classified as non-
sense, satirical, aggressive, or sexual. The correlations between the pairs of twins for
each category of humor averaged about .45, but did not differ between the fraternal
and identical twins, indicating that individual differences in the appreciation of these
>4 8 • THE DEVELOPMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY OF HUMOR
humor categories do not appear to have a genetic basis. On the other hand, the sizable
magnitude of the average correlations indicated that environmental influences shared
by both members of a pair play a fairly substantial role in the development of their
humor preferences. Thus, shared environmental influences, such as the effects of
being raised within a particular family, appear to play a more important role than
genetic factors in determining the degree to which individuals enjoy particular types
of humor. A subsequent more detailed analysis of the same data led to similar con-
clusions (G. D. Wilson, Rust, and Kasriel, 1977).
In a more recent twin study by Lynn Cherkas and colleagues at St. Thomas Hos-
pital in London, 127 pairs of female twins (71 monozygotic and 56 dizygotic) ages 20
to 75 were asked to rate the funniness of five Far Side cartoons by Gary Larson
(Cherkas et al., 2000). As we saw in the last chapter, these rather bizarre, "off-the-
wall" cartoons have been found in previous research to load on Ruch's (1992) non-
sense factor of humor appreciation, as opposed to the incongruity-resolution factor.
The results replicated the earlier findings of Nias and Wilson (1977). Whereas sig-
nificant correlations were found between the pairs of twins on the funniness ratings
of each of the five cartoons, these correlations did not differ between the fraternal
and identical twins, indicating no genetic contribution to individual differences in the
enjoyment of these cartoons. Multivariate model-fitting analyses confirmed that the
data were best explained by a model that allowed for the contribution of both shared
and nonshared environmental factors, but not genetic effects. Thus, this study pro-
vided further evidence that a sense of humor, when defined as the appreciation of par-
ticular types of humor, develops primarily as a result of environmental influences both
within and outside the family of origin.
Besides the humor appreciation approach, another way of thinking about the
sense of humor construct is to view it as a temperament-based affective trait. As we
saw in Chapter 7, Willibald Ruch and his colleagues have proposed that individual
differences in humor may be conceptualized in terms of temperamental differences
in cheerfulness (e.g., Ruch and Kohler, 1998). Temperament refers to relatively stable
characteristics of response to the environment, such as activity level, sociability, and
emotionality, which are observed in infants as early as the first months of life (A. H.
Buss and Plomin, 1984). To explore possible genetic and environmental factors in
temperament, researchers at the University of Wisconsin (Goldsmith et al., 1999)
conducted a study of 302 pairs of 3- to 16-month-old infant twins (121 identical and
181 fraternal). Several dimensions of temperament were assessed by means of mater-
nal ratings on a standardized questionnaire, as well as laboratory observations. Factor
analysis of the temperament variables revealed two main factors: (1) positive affectiv-
ity, composed of frequency of smiling and laughter, duration of orienting, and sooth-
ability; and (2) negative affectivity, composed of distress in response to limitations and
novelty, and activity level. The positive affectivity factor seems to be most relevant to
Ruch's concept of trait cheerfulness and sense of humor in general, whereas negative
affectivity likely corresponds to neuroticism and Ruch's concept of trait bad mood.
Multivariate model-fitting analyses revealed that positive affectivity was best
explained by a model that included additive genetic (40 percent), shared environ-
INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN CHILDREN'S SENSE OF HUMOR 2!
mental (34 percent), and nonshared environmental effects (25 percent). Very similar
results were obtained when the frequency of smiling and laughter was analyzed sep-
arately. Thus, the degree to which an infant tends to respond with smiling and laugh-
ter, as well as his or her overall positive emotionality, appears to be influenced by
both genetic and environmental factors. Of particular interest here is the rinding of
a shared environmental component, indicating that children's positive affectivity is
partly influenced by factors that are common to children within the same family, such
as maternal personality or attachment security. Similar findings of shared environ-
mental effects on positive emotionality have been found in other twin studies of
infants, preschoolers, and adults (Goldsmith, Buss, and Lemery, 1997; Tellegen et al.,
1988).
On the other hand, the analyses revealed that negative affectivity was best
explained by a model containing only additive genetic (64 percent) and nonshared
environmental effects (36 percent). Thus, negative emotionality also appears to be
influenced by both genetic and environmental factors. However, the environmental
influences in this case are not those that are shared by all children within the same
family, but instead have to do with ways in which children in the same family may
have different experiences. In summary, this study indicates that sense of humor, when
viewed as an emotional temperament trait, is influenced by both genetic and envi-
ronmental factors.
In addition to research on humor appreciation and emotional temperament, two
studies have investigated genetic and environmental contributions to sense of humor
using self-report humor measures. In an early twin study, identical and fraternal ado-
lescent twins were asked to rate the degree to which they felt they had a good sense
of humor on a 7-point scale (Loehlin and Nichols, 1976). A significantly larger cor-
relation was found between identical as compared to fraternal twins, suggesting a
genetic contribution to individual differences in self-rated humor. A very weak cor-
relation for fraternal twins indicated that environmental influences are of the non-
shared rather than the shared variety.
The second study, described by Beth Manke (1998), at the University of Houston,
examined individual differences in interpersonal humor expression in adolescents.
Instead of using pairs of identical and fraternal twins, however, this study made use
of pairs of adolescent siblings who had been raised in the same families but were either
nonadopted (therefore sharing approximately 50 percent of their genes) or adopted
at birth (therefore not sharing any genes). As in the twin studies, a larger correlation
between nonadopted compared to adopted sibling pairs would indicate a genetic
effect. A self-report questionnaire was used to assess the degree to which each par-
ticipant typically engaged in humor and laughter (e.g., telling jokes and funny stories,
laughing or joking about embarrassing or upsetting events, laughing at comedy movies
and television programs) in their relationships with their mother, their sibling, and
their best friend.
Multivariate model-fitting analyses revealed that a significant proportion (over 25
percent) of the variance in humor use with mothers and siblings can be attributed to
genetic factors. In contrast, genetic influences were negligible for use of humor in
THE DEVELOPMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY OF HUMOR
relating to best friends. The author suggested that the lack of a genetic contribution
to humor in interactions with friends may have been due to the shorter duration of
these relationships. Genetic influences may become more apparent in longer-term
relationships in which humor patterns have become more stabilized. In addition, the
analyses revealed a sizable environmental influence on humor use with mothers, sib-
lings, and friends (accounting for over 50 percent of the variance). These effects were
of the nonshared variety, suggesting that growing up in the same family does not make
siblings similar in their humor expression.
Overall, then, this research suggests that a sense of humor is a product of both
genetics and environment, with the relative contributions of these two types of influ-
ence varying with different components of this trait. When sense of humor is defined
in terms of the appreciation of particular types of humorous material, genetic influ-
ences appear to be negligible, and most of the variance can be attributed to both
shared and unshared environmental effects. The types of things people laugh at are
determined primarily by their past experiences within and outside their family of
origin. When a temperament-based approach is taken, defining sense of humor in
terms of positive emotionality and the tendency to laugh and smile frequently, genetic
factors appear to play a more significant role, although both shared and unshared envi-
ronmental influences are also important. Finally, a sizable genetic contribution, as well
as nonshared environment influences, is found with self-report measures assessing
overall sense of humor and the tendency to engage in humorous interactions with
family members. Interestingly, there seem to be differences in the degree to which
genetic factors contribute to humor expression in different relationships, with humor
in relating to peers showing less genetic contribution than with family members. It is
important to note that these studies allow for the estimation of the overall effects of
genetic and environmental influences, but they are not able to identify the specific
genes or environmental factors that are responsible for individual differences in
humor. Further research is needed to address these questions.
Family Environment Factors in Sense of Humor Development
These heritability studies suggest that, although genetics play a role, environ-
mental factors are also important in the development of most dimensions of sense of
humor. One influential aspect of the environment is the family. Children likely learn
to express and enjoy humor in the context of their early relationships with their
parents and other family members. Two competing hypotheses have been proposed
concerning the way interactions with parents may influence the development of a
sense of humor, referred to as the modeling/reinforcement and the stress and coping
hypotheses (Manke, 1998). According to the Modeling/Reinforcement Hypothesis,
parents who enjoy humor themselves and who laugh and joke a good deal serve as
humorous role models and are likely to positively reinforce their children's attempts
at humor initiation, leading to greater humor and laughter in the children (McGhee,
Bell, and Duffey, 1986). On the other hand, the Stress and Coping Hypothesis sug-
INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN CHILDREN'S SENSE OF HUMOR
gests that a sense of humor may develop in children as a way of coping with distress,
conflict, and anxiety in an uncongenial family environment. For these children, humor
may be a way of releasing hostile feelings or gaining attention and approval from
parents who are otherwise rejecting and nonnurturing (McGhee, 1980b). There is
some research evidence in support of both of these hypotheses.
Paul McGhee (1980b) described a study of nursery school and elementary school
children at the Fels Research Institute in Ohio, in which observational ratings were
obtained for the children's frequency of laughter and behavioral and verbal attempts
to initiate humor during peer interactions in free-play sessions. Because these chil-
dren were part of an ongoing longitudinal study, data were also available on a number
of measures of antecedent maternal behaviors that had been assessed during their
infancy and earlier childhood. In support of the stress and coping hypothesis, corre-
lational analyses with the nursery school children revealed that those who showed
greater amounts of humor tended to have mothers who babied and overprotected
them but showed little affection and closeness.
Among both boys and girls at the elementary school age, greater humor expres-
sion was associated with a greater tendency of mothers to leave the children alone to
solve problems on their own, even when some assistance would have been appropri-
ate. Greater humor in elementary school girls was also related to a lack of maternal
protectiveness and a home environment characterized by conflict, unpleasantness,
repression, and insecurity. Thus, the development of a sense of humor in children
seemed to be associated with rather uncongenial parental behaviors toward the chil-
dren. No relation was found between children's humor behaviors and their mothers'
own tendency to engage in humor during interactions with the child, casting doubt
on the Modeling/Reinforcement Hypothesis.
Further support for the Stress and Coping Hypothesis was provided by a study
of male adolescents conducted at Vanderbilt University (Prasinos and Tittler, 1981).
Using a peer nomination technique, the participants were divided into humor-ori-
ented, moderately humor-oriented, and non-humor-oriented groups. Individuals in
the humor-oriented group, as compared to those in the other two groups, reported
significantly less cohesion and greater conflict in their families on a family environ-
ment measure and significantly greater distance from their father in a figure-
placement test.
The research by Fisher and Fisher (1981) on professional comedians and comic
children, described in Chapter 7, also lends support to the Stress and Coping Hypoth-
esis. Professional comedians described their relationships with their mothers as more
negative than did noncomic entertainers. Questionnaire data also revealed that the
mothers of comic children, as compared with mothers of noncomic children, were
significantly less kind, less sympathetic, less close and intimately involved with their
children, and more selfish and controlling, and they wanted their children to take
responsibility and grow up more quickly. Taken together, these studies provide some
support for the view that children may develop a sense of humor as a way of coping
with feelings of anger and anxiety, and as a means of gaining attention and approval
from parents who are otherwise distant and unsupportive.
THE DEVELOPMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY OF HUMOR
On the other hand, some support for the Modeling/Reinforcement Hypothesis
was found in a study by Paul McGhee and colleagues (1986) at Texas Tech Univer-
sity. Male and female university students and a group of elderly women completed a
self- report measure of humor initiation as well as a questionnaire about their parents'
tendency to engage in humor when they were growing up. Among male students,
humor initiation was positively correlated with father's humor, whereas female stu-
dents showed a positive correlation between laughter responsiveness and mother's
humor. Among the elderly women, those with higher scores on humor initiation and
laughter responsiveness reported that their mothers engaged in higher levels of joking,
clowning, and playful teasing when the participants were growing up. No significant
correlations were found between participants' humor scores and the modeling of
humor by the opposite-sex parent. These findings suggested that the greatest early
modeling influences on humor development may come from the same-sex parent.
However, these findings should be viewed as rather tentative, since they were based
on recall data that may be subject to memory biases.
Overall, the existing research seems to lend stronger support to the Stress and
Coping Hypothesis than to the Modeling/Reinforcement Hypothesis. However, more
thorough investigation is required before firm conclusions may be drawn. Most of the
evidence to date is based on studies with small sample sizes, and the Modeling/Rein-
forcement Hypothesis in particular has not been adequately investigated. Future
research should examine possible effects of family environment and parental behav-
iors on a broader range of aspects of children's sense of humor, and the possibility of
curvilinear relationships should also be examined.
In the end, there may be some validity to both the Modeling/Reinforcement and
the Stress and Coping hypotheses. Some children raised in uncongenial family envi-
ronments may develop a sense of humor to cope and gain acceptance, especially if
they learn that their humorous behaviors are positively reinforced by attention and
approval from parents who are otherwise harsh and unaffectionate. Other children,
who are raised in more secure and nurturing environments, may develop a sense of
humor as a consequence of parental modeling and reinforcement. As we have seen in
previous chapters, humor serves a variety of different social functions, and there are
likely to be several different pathways in the development of individual differences in
humor.
An additional weakness of this research is that it does not control for possible
genetic confounds in the observed relations. Any associations that are found between
parents' behavior and their children's later sense of humor may be due to the genes
that are shared by parents and children rather than to causal effects of the parental
behavior on the child's sense of humor. One way to test for this possibility is to
compare the associations between family environment and children's sense of humor
in adoptive and nonadoptive families. If a stronger relation is found for nonadoptive
than for adoptive children, this would suggest that the effect is at least partially medi-
ated by the greater genetic similarity between parents and nonadopted children.
This approach was taken in a study reported by Beth Manke (1998) that investi-
gated the relation between family environment variables and interpersonal humor
INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN CHILDREN'S SENSE OF HUMOR
expression in male and female adolescents who were either raised by their biological
parents or were adopted at birth. In this longitudinal study (part of which was
described in the previous section), the general family environment and maternal par-
enting practices had been assessed when the adolescents were 9 to 1 1 years of age by
means of questionnaires completed by the mothers. The data analyses revealed only
a few significant correlations between these family environment measures and meas-
ures of interpersonal humor that were completed several years later by the adoles-
cents. The results provided weak and somewhat contradictory support for the Stress
and Coping Hypothesis.
Of particular interest to the present discussion, though, was the finding that any
significant associations that did emerge occurred only with the nonadopted children
and not with the adopted children. This finding suggests that associations between
the family environment and children's sense of humor development may be geneti-
cally mediated, rather than being a direct causal effect. In other words, certain com-
binations of genes (which are passed from parents to their biological children) may
contribute both to particular parenting practices and to the development of a sense
of humor in children, whereas these parenting practices might not directly influence
sense of humor development. These conclusions are only tentative, however, since
this is the only study of this kind conducted so far, the sample size was fairly small,
and the parenting behaviors were assessed only during middle childhood.
Further research along these lines is clearly needed, using a variety of approaches
to measure sense of humor in children, and broader, more objective assessments of
parental behaviors and family environment beginning at an earlier age in the chil-
dren's development. An alternative method of controlling for the confounding effects
of genetics in studying effects of parenting on children's sense of humor is the "chil-
dren of twins" design, which compares parent-child associations in identical versus
fraternal twins and their offspring (D'Onofrio et al., 2003).
Personality and Behavioral Correlates of Children's Sense of Humor
What other personality traits, abilities, and behaviors are associated with having
a sense of humor in children? Once again, the answer depends in part on how we
define sense of humor. Several studies have investigated individual differences in chil-
dren's tendency to initiate humor and make other children laugh in the playground
and classroom. Associations between these humor initiation measures and various
other interpersonal behaviors, traits, and abilities have been examined in children of
different ages. In one study of four- and five-year-old nursery school children, those
who were rated by their teachers as being more likely to initiate humor in interac-
tions with peers were found to have more advanced language skills and were rated by
their mothers as having a temperament characterized by greater activity and approach,
rather than social withdrawal (Carson et al., 1986).
In the longitudinal study by Paul McGhee (1980b) discussed earlier, associations
were examined between children's general interpersonal behavior during free play in
their preschool years and their later frequency of verbal and behavioral humor
THE DEVELOPMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY OF HUMOR
initiation and laughter with peers when they were either in nursery school or ele-
mentary school. Among nursery-school-age children, those who engaged in more fre-
quent laughter and initiation of humor had previously been observed to engage in
more frequent unprovoked verbal and physical aggression and retaliation to aggres-
sion with their peers. More humorous children also tended to be those who were taller
and heavier and who had exerted more effort on mastery of gross-motor skills (which
are particularly involved in physical play activities seen in the playground) and less
effort on intellectual activities and mastery of fine-motor skills (which are needed for
writing, art, and other academic activities observed in the classroom). In addition,
while unrelated to overall intelligence, greater verbal humor initiation was observed
in children who had developed better language abilities at an earlier age. Overall, these
findings suggest that humorous behavior with peers in nursery school children occurs
particularly in aggressive, physically large, active children with better gross-motor
than fine-motor skills and precocious language development.
Similar patterns were observed with the elementary school children. Among both
boys and girls, those who engaged in greater amounts of verbal and nonverbal humor
initiation and who were rated by observers as having a greater sense of humor tended
to be those who had previously been rated as being more physically and verbally
aggressive, more dominant, and exerting more effort on activities requiring gross-
motor rather than fine-motor skills. High-humor children also tended to have had
more precocious speech development and better language skills, and were rated by
observers as being more creative at an early age (McGhee, 1980a). In addition, they
were rated as seeking more help, attention, and affection from adults, and were more
likely to engage in imitation during play. By elementary school, greater humor was
no longer associated with weight or height, although it was still related to greater
social dominance.
A study by Sandra Damico and William Purkey (1978), at the University of
Florida, examined personality traits of 96 eighth-grade children in 10 different junior
high schools who were identified by their classmates as being "class clowns" (i.e., stu-
dents who "joke and clown around a lot" and "make others laugh"). In comparison
with a randomly selected group of nonclown classmates, the class clowns (who were
much more likely to be male than female) were rated by their teachers as being
higher in social assertiveness, cheerfulness, and leadership, but also more unruly and
attention-seeking, and less likely to complete their academic work. On a measure of
self-concept, class clowns were more likely to describe themselves as leaders, vocal in
expressing ideas and opinions, confident about speaking up in class, satisfied with
themselves, and self-confident. However, they also rated themselves as being less well-
understood by their parents and displayed more negative attitudes toward their teach-
ers and principal.
Although humorous children may be perceived by their teachers as somewhat
unruly and disruptive, other studies indicate that they tend to be very popular with
their classmates. Lawrence Sherman (1988), at Miami University in Ohio, had chil-
dren in three fourth-grade classes rate the sense of humor and the degree to which
they liked the other children in their class. The mean liking ratings for each child
INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN CHILDREN'S SENSE OF HUMOR
were used to compute a measure of the child's social distance within the class. A
strong correlation was found between the mean humor ratings and social distance
scores, indicating that children who were perceived to have a better sense of humor
were more well-liked by their peers. This association between perceived humor
and social distance was stronger among same-sex peers than among opposite-sex
classmates.
These findings were replicated in a subsequent study using classes of 9-, 12-, and
15-year-old children (Warners-Kleverlaan, Oppenheimer, and Sherman, 1996). The
latter study revealed that, among 12- and 15 -year-olds, the association between sense
of humor and social distance became equally strong for cross-gender and within-
gender ratings. Thus, as children enter adolescence and begin to take a stronger inter-
est in members of the opposite sex, a sense of humor seems to be an important
component of one's popularity with both sexes. This study also indicated that pre-
adolescent children tend to define a sense of humor in terms of funny actions and
joke-telling, whereas adolescents define it more in terms of witty verbal skills.
Some additional research suggests that the pattern of behavioral and personality
correlates of the tendency to initiate humor with peers may change as individuals
progress into adolescence. Michael Fabrizi and Howard Pollio (1987b), at the Uni-
versity of Tennessee, observed children in grades 3, 7, and 11 during classroom
periods, and coded how frequently each child initiated humor and made other chil-
dren laugh. No differences were found between boys and girls in the frequency of
humor initiation. Among children in grade three, the frequency of humor initiation
was unrelated to the children's general classroom behavior or their interactions with
their teachers.
However, by grade seven, children who engaged in more frequent humor initia-
tion tended to be those who were generally more disruptive in class, calling out rather
than raising their hands for permission to speak, frequently leaving their seat, inter-
acting more often with peers, and spending less time doing their school work. Not
surprisingly, the more humorous children were also more likely to receive disapproval
and reprimands for off-target behavior from their teachers. Although the pattern of
correlations was similar in grade 11, humor in these older children seemed to be some-
what less disruptive. The authors concluded that, whereas humor initiation in grade
7 seemed to be part of a constellation of acting-out behaviors, by grade 1 1 it seemed
to be associated with being a popular child who knows the rules of the classroom and
is sought out by his or her peers.
In a subsequent study, Fabrizi and Pollio (1987a) found that children in grade
seven who engaged in more frequent humor initiation in the classroom and were more
frequently nominated by their peers as being "the funniest in the class" tended to have
lower scores on a measure of self-esteem. By grade 1 1 , however, there was no asso-
ciation between humor initiation and self-concept. These findings seem to be incon-
sistent with the positive self concept found in class clowns in the Damico and Purkey
(1978) study, although the differences may be due to the fact that the latter study used
a more extreme group of humorous children drawn from a larger population, rather
than examining correlations within the classroom.
THE DEVELOPMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY OF HUMOR
On the other hand, whereas no correlation was found between humor initiation
and creativity among children in grade 7, more frequent humor initiation in grade 1 1
was significantly correlated with higher scores for originality, flexibility, and elabora-
tion on a test of creative thinking as well as higher teacher ratings of creativity. These
findings suggest that being funny with peers is associated with different behaviors and
personality characteristics at these different ages. During early adolescence (grade
seven), making one's peers laugh is associated with going against authority, acting out,
being silly, and having low self-esteem. In later stages of adolescence (grade 11),
making one's peers laugh is less strongly related to disruptive behavior and low self-
esteem, and more strongly related to creativity and popularity with peers.
Although this correlational research does not permit us to draw conclusions about
causality, these studies, taken together, provide some indication of the possible devel-
opmental trajectory of children who become particularly adept at initiating humor
and amusing their peers. Temperamentally outgoing and active preschoolers who are
verbally and physically aggressive learn at an early age that aggressive behavior is likely
to meet with disapproval from adults as well as rejection from peers. Those children
with strong verbal skills or gross-motor abilities may learn that a more acceptable way
of gaining acceptance from peers and minimizing disapproval from adults is to channel
these abilities into verbal and physical humor that generates laughter in others. In ele-
mentary and junior high school, the ability to make others laugh leads to increased
popularity and a position of dominance and leadership among peers, but it also
increasingly brings the child into conflict with the demands of the classroom, result-
ing in these children having a conflicted relationship with authority figures and being
perceived by teachers as disruptive and unruly. By high school, humorous children
continue to be socially dominant and assertive, but somewhat less disruptive, and as
they hone their humor abilities they also become more creative in their thinking in
general.
This description of the hypothesized course of humor development seems con-
sistent with the existing data. However, because most of the research to date has used
cross-sectional designs, we do not know for certain if the children who are most
humorous in kindergarten are the same ones who make their friends laugh in high
school, or whether different children take on this humorous role at different age levels.
Longitudinal research is needed to examine the stability of humor initiation across
childhood and adolescence.
Besides defining sense of humor in terms of humor initiation during interactions
with peers, researchers have also examined individual differences in children's humor
appreciation and their ability to comprehend and produce humor using jokes and car-
toons. Ann Masten (1986), at the University of Minnesota, assessed the sense of humor
of children in grades five to eight using measures of humor appreciation (funniness
ratings of cartoons), amount of laughter and smiling in response to the cartoons,
humor comprehension (ability to explain the point of the cartoons), and humor pro-
duction (ability to generate witty cartoon captions). The children's social competence
was also assessed by means of teacher and peer ratings on a standardized question-
naire, and their academic competence was measured using intelligence and achieve-
ment tests.
HUMORANDAGING 2(.
With regard to social competence, children with higher levels of humor com-
prehension and production were rated by their peers as higher on sociability and lead-
ership and lower on emotional sensitivity and social isolation. They were also rated
by their teachers as showing more cooperativeness, attention, and initiative. Correla-
tions with the amount of laughter and funniness ratings of cartoons showed similar,
although somewhat weaker, patterns. With regard to academic competence, correla-
tional analyses showed that children who displayed more laughter in response to car-
toons, humor comprehension, and humor production tended to have higher IQ and
academic achievement scores. None of the humor measures were significantly corre-
lated with peer or teacher ratings of aggressiveness, oppositional behavior, or disrup-
tiveness in the classroom.
Using the same humor measures as in the Masten (1986) study, a similar pattern
of findings emerged in a subsequent investigation of social and academic competence
in children ages 9 to 14 (Pellegrini et al., 1987). Factor analyses of a variety of social
and cognitive competence measures revealed that the amount of laughter in response
to cartoons, humor appreciation, comprehension, and production measures all loaded
on a "social comprehension" factor, along with measures of interpersonal under-
standing and means-ends problem solving. Thus, these sense of humor measures
formed part of a social cognition dimension involving maturity of understanding
about the social world and the ability to achieve social goals and solve interpersonal
problems. This dimension was in turn positively related to teacher and peer ratings
of social competence, popularity, friendliness, and leadership. It was also significantly
but weakly related to academic achievement. In addition, humor comprehension
and production both loaded on a factor of divergent thinking, along with measures
of creativity and cognitive reflectivity and accuracy (cf. Brodzinsky, 1975; Brodzinsky,
1977).
Overall, the findings of these two studies suggest that when sense of humor is
defined in terms of humor production ability and comprehension and appreciation of
cartoons, it tends to be positively correlated with social competence and maturity,
sociability, cooperative behaviors, academic achievement, and intellectual abilities, and
unrelated to aggressiveness and disruptive classroom behavior. Of course, the direc-
tion of causality in these correlational findings is unknown. These findings are quite
different from the pattern of correlations described earlier in research defining sense
of humor in terms of children's tendency to make their peers laugh. In that research,
humor initiation tended to be related to a history of aggressiveness, disruptive class-
room behavior, inattention to school work, and a generally conflicted relationship with
authority figures. Thus, correlations between sense of humor and particular person-
ality traits, competencies, and behaviors may be quite different, depending on the way
sense of humor is defined and measured.
HUMOR AND AGING
How does the sense of humor change as people progress through adulthood
and into old age? Our discussion of humor development in this chapter has focused
THE DEVELOPMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY OF HUMOR
particularly on the period from infancy to adolescence. However, further develop-
ments in the production, comprehension, enjoyment, and social functions of humor
likely occur throughout the lifespan, along with changes in cognitive abilities, psy-
chosocial needs and concerns, social relationships, attitudes, coping with adverse life
events, and so on. Because only a few studies have investigated humor in older adults,
however, our knowledge in this area is very limited.
A major limitation of research comparing aspects of humor in older and younger
adults is that this approach does not permit us to determine whether any observed
differences are due to developmental changes that occur with aging, or whether they
are due to cohort effects. If elderly people are found to differ from younger people
in their humor abilities, styles, comprehension, or appreciation, this may be due to
the fact that they grew up in a different era, with different cultural norms and expec-
tations, different popular role models, different educational opportunities, and so on.
Longitudinal research, following individuals over many years, is needed to investigate
changes in humor over the course of individuals' lives. Since no studies of this kind
have been conducted, we must be cautious in our interpretation of the existing cross-
sectional research.
Some research suggests that declines in cognitive abilities in the elderly may be
associated with reduced comprehension of humor. A study at Purdue University found
that, among participants ages 50 to 80 years, greater age was associated with lower
comprehension but also greater appreciation (higher fanniness ratings) of jokes
(Schaier and Cicirelli, 1976). In addition, those older participants who were found to
have a reduced understanding of conservation of volume on standard Piagetian tasks
also showed lower comprehension and appreciation of jokes involving violations of
conservation, but not nonconservation jokes.
The authors concluded that these findings provide further support for the cog-
nitive congruency hypothesis (discussed earlier). In the first part of life, increases in
cognitive abilities enable children to understand and appreciate more cognitively chal-
lenging forms of humor; however, as their abilities increase still more and a joke
becomes too easy, their appreciation decreases. In the later part of life, as cognitive
ability begins to decline with age, comprehension of jokes also declines. This leads to
an increased appreciation of the humor as the joke places more cognitive demand on
the individual, up to the point where he or she no longer understands the joke, when
appreciation again declines.
In a more recent study at the University of Toronto, elderly participants (mean
age = 73 years), as compared to younger people (mean age = 29 years), made signif-
icantly more errors in selecting the humorous punch line on a joke completion test
and also made more errors in selecting the funnier cartoon when presented with pairs
of nonverbal cartoon drawings (Shammi and Stuss, 2003). In contrast, the two age
groups did not differ in their performance on a nonhumorous story completion
task, indicating an equal ability to understand narrative language. In the elderly par-
ticipants, performance on the verbal joke test was also significantly correlated with
performance on neuropsychological tests of working memory and verbal abstract
ability, while the nonverbal cartoon test was significantly related to measures of
HUMORANDAGING 2<
working memory, speed of visual scanning, mental flexibility, and visual perceptual
abilities. All of these abilities have been found in previous research to be related to
frontal lobe functioning. The deficits in performance on the verbal and nonverbal
humor tests in the elderly were much less severe, however, than those seen in patients
with right frontal lobe brain damage. With regard to humor appreciation, the
elderly participants, in comparison to the younger ones, rated humorous materials as
significantly funnier. Drawing on findings from previous brain research on humor
comprehension (discussed in Chapter 6), the authors of this study concluded that
subtle declines in frontal lobe functioning in the elderly may lead to some impair-
ment in cognitive processing of humor, while leaving the affective enjoyment of
humor intact.
To investigate age differences in humor appreciation in adults, Willibald Ruch
and colleagues (1990) examined correlations between age and humor appreciation on
the 3 WD humor test in a sample of more than 4000 German participants ranging in
age from 14 to 66 years. Enjoyment of incongruity-resolution (INC-RES) humor
increased significantly across the age span in a linear fashion, whereas enjoyment of
nonsense (NON) humor decreased with age. These age differences in the enjoyment
of the two categories of humor were found to be fully accounted for by a correspon-
ding increase with age in scores on a measure of conservatism. As noted in Chapter
7, greater preferences for INC-RES over NON humor are related to more conser-
vative social attitudes.
Thus, the more conservative attitudes of older as compared to younger adults are
reflected in differences in the kind of humor that they enjoy. In particular, older people
are more likely to enjoy humor in which incongruity is resolved (as in most "canned"
jokes) and less likely to enjoy the more offbeat types of humor containing unresolved
incongruity. Of course, as with all of this cross-sectional research, we do not know
whether the older participants became increasingly conservative and had correspond-
ing changes in their humor appreciation over the course of their lifetime, or whether
they were always more conservative and always enjoyed INC-RES humor more than
did the group born at a later time.
Some research has also examined age differences in younger and older adults'
scores on self-report humor measures. A study using the Multidimensional Sense of
Humor Scale (MSHS) with a sample of adults ages 18 to 90 found no age differences
in overall humor scores (Thorson and Powell, 1996). However, older participants
were somewhat more likely than younger ones to report producing and appreciating
humor and using humor to cope with stress, whereas they tended to report a more
negative attitude toward humorous people. My colleagues and I also examined age
differences in scores on the Humor Styles Questionnaire in more than 1000 partici-
pants ranging in age from 14 to 87 years (R. A. Martin et al., 2003). Older adults were
found to have significantly lower scores than younger ones on both affiliative and
aggressive humor, indicating that older people are less likely to engage in friendly
joking and laughing with others and are also less likely to use humor to disparage,
ridicule, or manipulate others. On the other hand, older women (but not men) had
higher scores than younger ones on self-enhancing humor, indicating a generally more
THE DEVELOPMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY OF HUMOR
humorous outlook on life and greater use of perspective-taking and coping humor.
No age differences were found with the self-defeating humor scale.
Taken together, these findings suggest that humor may serve different functions
for adults at different periods of the lifespan. In younger people, humor may be more
important for expressing aggression in socially acceptable ways, establishing relation-
ships, and testing one's social standing in the peer group, whereas humor in older
people (especially women) may have more to do with coping with stress and main-
taining a humorous outlook on life. These findings suggest potentially interesting
avenues for future longitudinal research exploring changes in humor abilities, enjoy-
ment, and functions over the lifespan.
CONCLUSION
Laughter begins to emerge in infants around four months of age, and occurs in
response to perceptions of incongruity in a playful, safe context. Right from its incep-
tion, laughter functions as a form of social communication. The incongruous tactile
stimuli, actions, sounds, and facial expressions that trigger laughter in infants gradu-
ally evolve into an internalized sense of humor, as developing schemas enable the child
to manipulate mental representations of concepts and language in incongruous ways.
Much research has examined associations between humor development and the
development of cognitive abilities through childhood. As cognitive capacities become
more complex, children are able to perceive and enjoy more sophisticated forms of
playful incongruity. Humor appreciation signals mastery of concepts, as humor that
playfully violates recently acquired concepts is funnier than humor that is either cog-
nitively too difficult or too simple. Children's ability to understand and enjoy con-
versational forms of humor such as irony and sarcasm also depends on their level of
cognitive development.
Social and emotional aspects of humor continue to play a major role throughout
childhood. Humor as a form of communication serves many social functions in chil-
dren as well as adults. Joking and laughing with others about taboo topics and anxiety-
arousing issues and experiences is an important way for children to manage negative
emotions such as anxiety, guilt, and insecurity in the face of an often bewildering and
threatening world.
Individual differences in sense of humor begin to emerge in early childhood. The
relative proportion of genetic and environmental influences on sense of humor differs
depending on how humor is defined and measured. With regard to familial influences
on sense of humor development, research has tended to support the Stress and Coping
Hypothesis, although evidence has also been found for the Modeling/Reinforcement
Hypothesis. Some children may develop a strong sense of humor due to a rather dys-
functional family environment in which humor emerges as a way of coping with neg-
ative emotions and gaining attention and approval from otherwise nonnurturing
parents, whereas others may develop a sense of humor as a result of growing up in a
well-functioning family in which humor is valued and modeled.
CONCLUSION 2<
Sense of humor defined as a tendency to frequently initiate humor and amuse
one's peers is associated with having been physically active, dominant, and aggressive,
and having precocious language abilities in the preschool years, and disruptive class-
room behavior during elementary school, but also popularity among peers and cre-
ativity in high school. Sense of humor defined as the ability to comprehend and
produce humor in the laboratory is associated with social competence, cooperative-
ness, initiative, and leadership.
In the latter part of the life span, declining cognitive abilities may be associated
with reduced comprehension of humor, but no reduction in humor appreciation and
enjoyment. More conservative attitudes in older as compared to younger adults are
associated with greater enjoyment of incongruity-resolution and reduced enjoyment
of nonsense humor. Older adults tend to use humor in less aggressive and affiliative
ways, but their greater breadth of life experience may enable them to have a gener-
ally more humorous outlook on life and an increased ability to use humor in coping
with life stress.
The study of humor development in childhood and across the lifespan offers many
interesting research opportunities. Although many studies have examined the role of
cognitive development in the comprehension and appreciation of "canned" jokes, car-
toons, and riddles, only a limited amount of research has examined cognitive devel-
opmental aspects of more spontaneous forms of verbal and nonverbal humor that
occur in everyday social interactions. Further research is also needed on the social
functions of humor in infancy and childhood and changes in these functions through
childhood and adolescence. Research on developmental aspects of the role of humor
in emotional coping is also needed.
With regard to individual differences in sense of humor, our knowledge of famil-
ial and other social environmental influences on humor development is still very
limited. Research on this topic needs to employ methodologies that enable researchers
to control for possible genetic confounds. Finally, further research is needed on
changes in various components of sense of humor in later life, as well as changes in
the social and emotional functions of humor in the elderly. In all these areas, longi-
tudinal research designs are needed to augment the findings of cross-sectional
research. Thus, although the existing research has provided a great deal of interest-
ing information about the development of humor, many questions remain to be
answered.
CHAPTER 9
Humor and Mental Health
In recent decades, a sense of humor has
come to be viewed not only as a very socially desirable personality trait but also as an
important component of mental health. Besides boosting positive emotions and
counteracting negative moods like depression and anxiety, humor is thought to be a
valuable mechanism for coping with stressful life events and an important social skill
for initiating, maintaining, and enhancing satisfying interpersonal relationships
(Galloway and Cropley, 1999; Kuiper and Olinger, 1998; Lefcourt, 2001). A good deal
of research in the psychology of humor in the past two decades has focused on the
relation between humor and various aspects of mental health.
Our discussion of the implications of humor for mental health in this chapter
brings us to clinical psychology, the branch of psychology having to do with the study,
assessment, and treatment of psychological disorders, as well as the study and pro-
motion of factors contributing to positive mental health and well-being (Seligman and
Peterson, 2003). Clinical psychology is both a research discipline and an applied pro-
fession. In this chapter, I will focus on the research aspect, exploring empirical find-
ings concerning the role of humor in psychological health and well-being; applied
issues will be the focus in Chapter 1 1 , where I will consider applications of humor to
psychotherapy.
Mental health is often defined in negative terms as the absence of psychologi-
cal disturbance or emotional distress. In this chapter, I will take a more positive
approach, defining it in terms of three general capacities that seem to be essential for
269
HUMOR AND MENTAL HEALTH
an individual to thrive and flourish. These are: (1) the ability to regulate negative
emotions and enjoy positive emotions; (2) the ability to cope with stress and adapt
to change; and (3) the ability to establish close, meaningful, and enduring relation-
ships with others. In the following sections I will describe research investigating the
potential benefits of humor for each of these three components of positive mental
health.
HUMOR AND EMOTIONAL WELL-BEING
As we have seen in earlier chapters, one component of humor is the positive
emotion of mirth that is elicited. When people engage in humor and laughter, they
tend to feel more cheerful and energetic, and less depressed, anxious, irritable, and
tense. In the short term, at least, humor seems to boost positive moods and counter-
act negative emotions. Thus, one way a sense of humor may be beneficial to mental
health is by contributing to one's ability to regulate or manage emotions, which is an
essential aspect of mental health (Gross and Mufioz, 1995).
Experimental Investigations of Humor and Emotions
The effects of humor on mood have been demonstrated in a number of labora-
tory experiments. In two studies, Willibald Ruch (1997) exposed participants to humor
either by having them interact with a clowning experimenter or by showing them
comedy videotapes. The frequency, intensity, and duration of their smiling and laugh-
ter were coded using the criteria for the Duchenne display which, as we saw in Chapter
6, indicates genuine amusement. The more the participants smiled and laughed in
this way, the more their self-reported feelings of cheerfulness and mirth increased
over baseline. Thus, smiling and laughter are an expression of the positive emotion
of mirth that is induced by the perception of humor, and the more intense this
emotion, the greater the laughter. Interestingly, there were no correlations between
the participants' pre-existing (baseline) moods and the degree to which they smiled
and laughed at the humorous stimuli, confirming that positive emotions were a con-
sequence rather than a cause of humorous amusement.
Other research suggests that smiling and laughter by themselves, even without
humor, can induce positive feelings of mirth. For example, when participants were
asked to rate the funniness of cartoons while holding a pen in their mouth in a way
that caused them to contract the facial muscles normally associated with smiling (as
compared to subjects who held the pen in a way that inhibited such muscle contrac-
tions), they rated the cartoons as funnier and reported greater increases in positive
mood (Strack, Martin, and Stepper, 1988). Laboratory studies have also found signif-
icant increases in positive mood in subjects following sessions of forced, nonhumor-
ous laughter (Foley, Matheis, and Schaefer, 2002; Neuhoff and Schaefer, 2002). Thus,
the act of smiling and laughing, even when done artificially, seems to induce feelings
of amusement and mirth, at least temporarily.
HUMOR AND EMOTIONAL WELL-BEING
Besides increasing positive moods, there is experimental evidence that humor can
reduce negative moods. One experiment found that exposure to a four-minute humor-
ous film led to a significant reduction in reported feelings of anxiety relative to base-
line (C. C. Moran, 1996). Another study compared the mood effects of watching a
20-minute comedy videotape, running on a treadmill for 20 minutes, and watching a
nonhumorous documentary video (Szabo, 2003). Compared to the aerobic exercise,
the comedy video produced similar increases in positive mood and decreases in emo-
tional distress and even greater reductions in anxiety, and both comedy and exercise
showed significantly stronger mood effects than did the nonhumorous control video
(these results were replicated by Szabo, Ainsworth, and Danks, 2005). Taken together,
these findings suggest that humor produces positive short-term emotional changes
that are at least comparable if not superior to the effects of vigorous physical
exercise.
There is also some evidence that humor can counteract the effects of experi-
mentally induced depressed moods. Using a standard laboratory mood-induction
technique, Amy Danzer and her colleagues (1990) induced dysphoric moods in female
undergraduate students and then randomly assigned them to either humorous audio-
tape (stand-up comedy), nonhumorous audiotape (an interesting but unfunny geog-
raphy lecture), or no tape conditions. Participants in all three groups showed
significant increases in self-reported depressed moods following the mood induction,
indicating that this procedure was effective, but only those in the humor condition
showed a significant posttreatment reduction in dysphoria back to baseline levels, sug-
gesting that humor counteracted the depressed mood.
Besides influencing positive and negative moods, there is experimental evidence
that humor-related mirth affects one's general outlook on life. One study found that
participants who watched a comedy videotape, as compared to those who viewed a
nonhumorous video, reported a significantly greater increase in feelings of hopeful-
ness (Vilaythong, Arnau, Rosen, and Mascaro, 2003). Another experiment suggested
that humor can change one's perceptions of a boring task into an interesting one
(Dienstbier, 1995). After watching either a comedy or nonhumorous videotape, par-
ticipants engaged in several repetitive and boring proofreading tasks. Those who had
viewed the comedy video, as compared to those in the control group, reported higher
levels of energy and elation and rated these tasks as being more challenging and invig-
orating, although they did not actually achieve better performance on the tasks. Thus,
the positive emotion associated with humor seems to make people more hopeful, more
energetic, and less susceptible to boredom.
The preceding experiments provided fairly consistent evidence of short-term
effects of humor on positive and negative moods and feelings of well-being in the lab-
oratory. Based on these findings, one would expect that exposing people to humor-
ous stimuli repeatedly over a number of weeks or months should result in overall
improvements in their prevailing moods and general outlook on life. However, when
researchers have investigated longer-term psychological effects of repeated exposure
to humorous stimuli over fairly extended time periods, the results have generally been
rather disappointing.
HUMOR AND MENTAL HEALTH
In one study, patients with chronic schizophrenia in one ward of a psychiatric
hospital were shown 70 comedy movies over a three-month period, while those in
another ward were shown an equal number of nonhumorous dramatic movies
(Gelkopf, Kreitler, and Sigal, 1993). After these interventions, comparisons were made
between the two groups on 2 1 measures relating to staff-rated and self-rated moods,
psychiatric symptoms, physical health symptoms, physiological variables, and cogni-
tive functioning. Significant benefits were found on only six of these variables, most
of which involved perceptions of the patients by hospital staff. In particular, the
patients who had watched the comedy movies, compared to those in the other group,
were rated by the staff as having significantly lower levels of verbal (but not behav-
ioral) hostility, anxiety/depression, and tension, and the patients themselves reported
greater perceived social support from the staff. The authors of the study acknowl-
edged that these rather meager findings may have had more to do with the effects of
the movies on the perceptions of the hospital staff than on the actual functioning of
the patients.
Even fewer psychological benefits of humor were found in other intervention
studies. James Rotton and Mark Shats (1996) randomly assigned patients recovering
from orthopedic surgery to watch either four feature-length comedy movies, four
dramatic but nonhumorous movies, or no movies during the two days postsurgery.
The results showed no differences between the humorous and non-humorous movie
conditions in levels of self- rated emotional distress and pain over the two days.
However, both of the movie-watching groups reported less distress and pain than did
those in the no-movie control condition, indicating a beneficial effect of watching
movies of any kind, but no particular benefit of humor.
Similarly, in a study of elderly residents of a long-term care facility, no significant
differences in self-reported prevailing moods were found after six weeks of watching
humorous versus nonhumorous feature-length movies three days per week, although
both groups showed equal improvements in mood over the course of the study (E. R.
Adams and McGuire, 1986). Finally, in an experiment in which undergraduate
participants were randomly assigned to six weekly lV2-hour sessions of either
laughter-induction exercises, relaxation training, or didactic health education presen-
tations, the laughter-induction sessions were found to be no more effective than the
nonhumorous health education lectures, and significantly less effective than the relax-
ation sessions, in reducing total mood disturbance and anxiety (White and Camarena,
1989).
In summary, although the experimental laboratory research indicates that humor
and laughter have beneficial short-term mood effects, there is little evidence of longer-
term psychological benefits of repeated exposure to humorous movies or participa-
tion in laughter sessions over a period of days or weeks. These findings raise questions
about the benefits of humor interventions such as those provided by laughter clubs,
in which members meet regularly to engage in laughter-induction exercises (Kataria,
2002).
Although the research in this area is still quite limited, the evidence to date sug-
gests that simply laughing for an hour or two a few times a week has little lasting
HUMOR AND EMOTIONAL WELL-BEING
effect on individuals' overall well-being. This may be because the humor is not inte-
grated into the participants' day-to-day experiences. Perhaps such interventions would
have greater benefits if they were designed to increase the frequency of humor and
laughter arising spontaneously during people's everyday social interactions, influenc-
ing the way they respond to ongoing life experiences, and thus contributing to more
effective emotion regulation. This would presumably require training people how to
take a more humorous perspective on their daily experiences and to produce humor
in their interactions with others.
However, very little research has investigated the degree to which people can
actually be taught to increase their tendency to engage in humor in the course of their
daily lives. In the only published study of this kind, Ofra Nevo and her colleagues
evaluated the effectiveness of a seven-week, 2 1 -hour training program for increasing
sense of humor in high school teachers, but found only limited evidence of success
(Nevo, Aharonson, and Klingman, 1998). The program led to increased peer ratings
of humor production and appreciation, as well as more positive attitudes toward
humor in the participants, but it did not improve their ability to produce humor, as
assessed by tests of humor creativity, or their scores on self-report humor measures.
Unfortunately, the effects of the intervention on psychological well-being were not
examined. In view of the efforts being made by some health care professionals to
promote mental and physical health by means of various interventions designed to
improve people's sense of humor (e.g., McGhee, 1999), there is clearly a need for
further research to determine whether it is even possible to change the quantity or
quality of people's everyday use of humor.
Correlational Studies of Trait Humor and Emotional Well-Being
If humor in general is beneficial to psychological well-being, then individuals who
engage in humor more frequently in their everyday lives (i.e., those with a greater
sense of humor) should tend to be generally less depressed, anxious, and pessimistic,
less likely to experience burnout and to develop psychiatric disorders, and they should
have greater self-esteem, optimism, and overall feelings of well-being. Numerous
studies have investigated these hypotheses by examining correlations between indi-
viduals' scores on various trait measures of sense of humor and a variety of measures
of emotional and psychological well-being.
Studies of university students using the Coping Humor Scale (CHS), Situational
Humor Response Questionnaire (SHRQ), and Sense of Humor Questionnaire
Metamessage Sensitivity (SHQ-M) and Liking of Humor (SHQ-L) scales (discussed
in Chapter 7) have found moderate negative correlations between some (but not all)
of these humor scales and measures of neuroticism, anxiety, and depression, and pos-
itive correlations with self-esteem (Deaner and McConatha, 1993; Kuiper and
Borowicz-Sibenik, 2005; Kuiper and Martin, 1993). Which humor scales are signifi-
cantly correlated with which well-being measures tends to vary across studies.
Research using the Multidimensional Sense of Humor Scale (MSHS) has also found
significant but generally weak negative correlations between this humor test and
HUMOR AND MENTAL HEALTH
measures of depression, death anxiety, pessimism, and the tendency to worry about
various life concerns (Kelly, 2002; Thorson and Powell, 1993b, 1994; Thorson et al.,
1997).
Some studies investigating stress-moderating effects of humor (which will be
described in more detail later in this chapter) have also reported significant negative
correlations between various self-report humor scales and measures of depression
(Anderson and Arnoult, 1989; Nezu, Nezu, and Blissett, 1988; Overholser, 1992;
Porterfield, 1987; Safranek and Schill, 1982), mood disturbance (Labott and Martin,
1987; Lefcourt et al., 1995), and emotional burnout (P. S. Fry, 1995). However, some
other studies found no simple correlation between sense of humor tests and anxiety
(Nezu et al., 1988), mood disturbance (R. A. Martin and Lefcourt, 1983), or positive
moods (Kuiper, Martin, and Dance, 1992).
To investigate the association between sense of humor and self-esteem, Nicholas
Kuiper and I examined correlations between four humor scales (CHS, SHRQ,
SHQ-M, and SHQ-L) and various measures of self-concept in undergraduate par-
ticipants (Kuiper and Martin, 1993). All four humor tests were found to be positively
correlated with a measure of self-esteem. In addition, three of them were negatively
related to the discrepancy between participants' actual and ideal self-ratings on a series
of 60 self-descriptive adjectives, indicating that those with higher humor scores had
a greater congruence between the way they actually perceived themselves and the way
they would ideally like to be. In addition, two of the humor tests were significantly
related to the temporal stability of self-ratings on these adjectives over a one-month
period, indicating that participants with higher humor scores had a more stable self-
concept. Finally, participants with higher scores on all four humor scales were sig-
nificantly less likely to endorse dysfunctional, unrealistic, and perfectionistic
self-evaluative standards. Overall, this study indicated that individuals with higher
scores on at least some of these humor measures tend to have a more positive, con-
gruent, stable, and realistic self-concept.
In addition to research on university students, a study of elderly residents of
assisted living facilities found that those with higher scores on the CHS tended to
have higher levels of emotional health, positive mood, and zest for life (Celso, Ebener,
and Burkhead, 2003). A study of well-being among noninstitutionalized elderly
women and men also found that higher scores on the SHRQ and CHS were signifi-
cantly associated with better morale but unrelated to overall life satisfaction (Simon,
1990). In addition, a study of the relation between humor and burnout among instruc-
tors in a school of nursing found that higher scores on the CHS were related to sig-
nificantly lower levels of depersonalization and higher levels of perceived personal
accomplishment, but were unrelated to emotional exhaustion (Talbot and Lumden,
2000).
Whereas the preceding research was conducted with nonclinical samples, a few
studies have also investigated whether psychiatric patients have lower sense of humor
scores, on average, than do people without diagnosed psychiatric disorders. One study
compared a group of hospitalized adolescent psychiatric patients and a group of
normal adolescents and found no differences in their average scores on the CHS or
HUMOR AND EMOTIONAL WELL-BEING
measures of humor creation ability and humor appreciation, casting some doubt on
the benefits of humor for mental health (Freiheit, Overholser, and Lehnert, 1998).
Similarly, a study of defensive styles in clinically depressed patients found no differ-
ence in humor scores between those who had recently attempted suicide and those
who had not (Corruble et al., 2004).
One study did report that hospitalized adult psychiatric patients diagnosed with
depression or schizophrenia had significantly lower scores on at least some trait humor
measures as compared to scale norms derived from university students (Kuiper et al.,
1998). However, it is questionable whether this was an appropriate comparison group,
due to differences in age, education level, and social background. Overall, then,
although the research on this question is quite limited, there is little evidence that
high humor individuals are less likely to have psychiatric disorders than are those with
less of a sense of humor. Some clinicians have pointed out that clinically depressed
people do not necessarily display less humor than others, but their humor tends to be
rather black, cynical, hostile, and excessively self-disparaging (e.g., Kantor, 1992).
Nonetheless, there is some evidence that, within groups of individuals diagnosed
with clinical depression, greater emotional disturbance is associated with lower trait
humor scores. In the study of hospitalized adolescent psychiatric patients, higher
scores on the CHS were associated with lower levels of depression and higher self-
esteem, although they were unrelated to feelings of hopelessness (Freiheit et al., 1998).
The study of hospitalized adult psychiatric patients found that higher sense of humor
scores tended to be associated with lower depression and higher self-esteem and pos-
itive moods among the clinically depressed patients (Kuiper et al., 1998). However,
sense of humor was unrelated to symptom severity among patients diagnosed with
schizophrenia. Another study of humor in hospitalized schizophrenic patients simi-
larly found no relation between scores on the CHS and several self-report and
psychiatrist-rated measures of hostility, aggression, and anger (Gelkopf and Sigal,
1995). Thus, although a greater sense of humor seems to be related to lower sever-
ity of disturbance in clinically depressed individuals, this does not seem to be the case
among persons with schizophrenia.
In the correlational research described so far, the overall evidence for mental
health benefits of a sense of humor is not overwhelming. Some correlations have been
found between sense of humor, as measured by self-report scales, and various com-
ponents of emotional well-being, but the associations often tend to be quite weak and
the findings have been somewhat inconsistent across studies. Nicholas Kuiper and I
(1998a) examined the results of five correlational studies to determine how sense of
humor compares with another positive personality characteristic commonly thought
to be important for mental health, namely optimism. These studies employed four
sense of humor scales (CHS, SHRQ, SHQ-M, and SHQ-L), a test of dispositional
optimism, and various measures of psychological well-being. The analyses revealed
that higher scores on the sense of humor scales were only weakly associated with
greater optimism. In relation to a multidimensional measure of psychological well-
being, higher scores on the humor tests were associated with only one subscale assess-
ing personal growth, but they were unrelated to self-acceptance, positive relations
HUMOR AND MENTAL HEALTH
with others, autonomy, environmental mastery, and purpose in life. In contrast, opti-
mism was much more strongly related to all six of these components of psychologi-
cal well-being.
The humor scales were also almost entirely uncorrelated with a measure of mental
health-related assumptions about the world and other people, whereas optimism was
significantly related in positive ways to most of these world beliefs. Consistent with
other research, the sense of humor scales did show moderate positive correlations with
self-esteem, and negative correlations with anxiety, depression, fear of negative eval-
uations, and social avoidance and distress. However, optimism was more strongly
related to all of these well-being measures. Thus, although these sense of humor
measures are associated with some aspects of emotional well-being, the correlations
appear to be generally weaker and less extensive than are those with other "positive
personality" constructs such as optimism.
These rather weak and inconsistent associations between trait measures of sense
of humor and well-being can perhaps be explained by research (discussed in Chapter
7) showing that most self-report humor tests load primarily on the general personal-
ity factor of extraversion, but only weakly, if at all, on the neuroticism factor (Kohler
and Ruch, 1996; Ruch, 1994). Extraversion has to do with the general tendency to
experience positive emotions, as well as traits such as sociable, lively, and active. On
the other hand, neuroticism, which is unrelated to extraversion, involves emotional
instability, moodiness, irritability, and the tendency to experience negative emotions,
such as depression, anxiety, and hostility. Not surprisingly, most measures of psycho-
logical well-being load primarily (negatively) on the neuroticism factor (DeNeve,
1999).
The fact that the two broad personality dimensions of extraversion and neuroti-
cism are uncorrelated with each other may explain why the sense of humor measures
(relating primarily to extraversion) tend to be only weakly associated with well-being
measures (relating mainly to neuroticism). Since dispositional optimism is more
strongly (inversely) associated with neuroticism than are the humor measures, it also
tends to correlate more strongly with well-being measures. This begs the question of
whether there are some dimensions of humor that are more strongly associated with
neuroticism, either negatively or positively, which are not well measured by the self-
report humor tests used in the research discussed so far. This question is addressed
in the next section.
Distinguishing Potentially Healthy and Unhealthy Humor Styles
People use humor in their interactions with others in many different ways and
for different purposes. As noted in Chapter 5, humor serves numerous interpersonal
functions, some of which may contribute to greater social cohesiveness and enhanced
communication between people, whereas others may be more coercive, disparaging,
or ingratiating. Although overall sense of humor may be weakly related to emotional
health, as suggested by research described in the previous section, perhaps some of
HUMOR AND EMOTIONAL WELL-BEING
the ways people use humor are more strongly associated with well-being, whereas
other forms of humor may even be associated with poorer psychological health.
This way of thinking about the connection between humor and mental health is
consistent with the views of psychologists writing about this topic in the past. For
example, when Sigmund Freud (1928) referred to humor as the "highest of the defense
mechanisms" (p. 216) and described it as "something fine and elevating" (p. 217), he
was not speaking about humor in the broad sense that we generally associate with it
today, but instead he was giving it a narrow meaning, consistent with the terminol-
ogy of the nineteenth century. As noted in Chapter 1, humor in this sense referred
exclusively to a sympathetic, tolerant, and benevolent form of amusement, and
was distinguished from wit, which was viewed as more sarcastic, biting, and cruel
(Wickberg, 1998).
In a similar way, psychologists like Abraham Maslow (1954), Gordon Allport
(1961), and Walter O'Connell (1976) suggested that especially well-adjusted individ-
uals are characterized by a particular style of humor that is nonhostile, philosophical,
and self-deprecating while remaining self-accepting. These authors viewed this
healthy form of humor as relatively rare, in contrast with most of the humor occur-
ring in everyday social interactions and in the media. Interestingly, they also suggested
that healthy forms of humor are not necessarily extremely funny, being more likely
to trigger a chuckle than a hearty laugh. Maslow (1954) even suggested that the par-
ticularly well-adjusted people that he characterized as "self-actualizing" would
likely be perceived by the average person as "rather on the sober and serious side"
(p. 223).
These ideas suggest that psychological health relates not only to the presence of
certain kinds of adaptive humor but also to the absence of other more unhealthy forms
of amusement. Rather than assuming that humor in general is beneficial for mental
health and well-being, as most recent researchers seem to have done, it may there-
fore be important to return to earlier views which made a distinction between bene-
ficial and detrimental forms of humor.
This view of humor as being potentially detrimental as well as beneficial to mental
health was the rationale for our development of the Humor Styles Questionnaire
(HSQ; R. A. Martin et al., 2003), which I described in Chapter 7. In developing this
measure, we identified two styles of humor that have been discussed in the literature
as being potentially unhealthy: one involving the use of humor to enhance the self at
the expense of others, and the other involving the use of humor to gain approval and
attention from others at the expense of one's own psychological needs. We hypothe-
sized that these two humor styles may capture some of the forms of humor that psy-
chologists like Allport and Maslow viewed as less likely to be found in people who are
particularly psychologically healthy.
The first of these, aggressive humor, is the tendency to use humor for the purpose
of criticizing or manipulating others, as in sarcasm, teasing, ridicule, derision, or dis-
paragement humor (e.g., "If someone makes a mistake, I will often tease them about
it"), as well as the use of potentially offensive (e.g., racist or sexist) forms of humor.
HUMOR AND MENTAL HEALTH
It also includes the compulsive expression of humor even when it is socially inappro-
priate (e.g., "Sometimes I think of something that is so funny that I can't stop myself
from saying it, even if it is not appropriate for the situation"). Most of us know people
who tend to use humor in these sorts of aggressive and domineering ways.
The other potentially unhealthy style, self-defeating humor, involves the use of
humor to ingratiate oneself with others, attempts to amuse others by doing or saying
funny things at one's own expense, excessively self-disparaging humor, and laughing
along with others when being ridiculed or disparaged (e.g., "I often try to make
people like or accept me more by saying something funny about my own weaknesses,
blunders, or faults"). It also involves the use of humor as a form of defensive
denial (Marcus, 1990), to hide one's underlying negative feelings or avoid dealing
constructively with problems ("If I am having problems or feeling unhappy, I often
cover it up by joking around, so that even my closest friends don't know how I really
feel").
A prominent example of what we consider to be the use of self-defeating humor
was Chris Farley, a popular American comedian in the early 1990s who honed his
zany comedic skills as an overweight child with a desperate need to be liked by others.
Despite the outstanding success that he achieved as a young adult through his hilar-
ious and rather compulsive sense of humor, he seemed to harbor a deep self-loathing,
destroying himself at an early age through alcohol, drugs, and overeating. Rather than
contributing to effective coping, his humor seemed to be a way of denying the sever-
ity of his problems and deflecting the concerns of his friends. John Belushi, who met
a similar end in the midst of a brilliant comedy career, seems to be another example
of this self-defeating humor style. Interestingly, in our research with the HSQ, aggres-
sive and self-defeating humor turned out to be significantly positively correlated with
each other, indicating that people who use one potentially unhealthy style tend to use
the other as well.
We also identified two styles of humor that we thought might be positively asso-
ciated with psychological well-being, one having to do with the use of humor to
promote positive interpersonal relationships and the other with the use of humor
to cope with stress and regulate emotions. The first of these, affiliative humor, refers
to the tendency to say funny things, to tell jokes, and to engage in spontaneous witty
banter, in order to amuse others, to facilitate relationships, and to reduce interper-
sonal tensions (e.g., "I enjoy making people laugh"; "I don't have to work very hard
at making other people laugh — I seem to be a naturally humorous person"). We
viewed this as an essentially nonhostile, tolerant use of humor that is affirming of self
and others and presumably enhances interpersonal cohesiveness. However, research
with the HSQ has shown that, at least in North American samples, affiliative humor
turns out to be weakly correlated with aggressive humor, suggesting that it may tap
into the use of teasing, which may at times be friendly and prosocial, but also risks
becoming aggressive.
The second presumably healthy humor style is self-enhancing humor, which refers
to the tendency to be frequently amused by the incongruities of life, to maintain a
humorous perspective even in the face of stress or adversity, and to use humor as an
HUMOR AND EMOTIONAL WELL-BEING 27<
emotion-regulation mechanism (e.g., "My humorous outlook on life keeps me from
getting overly upset or depressed about things"). This humor style is closely related
to the construct assessed by the earlier Coping Humor Scale. Subsequent research
has found that self-enhancing humor tends to be fairly strongly related to affiliative
humor, a finding that emphasizes the essentially social nature of humor, but it is unre-
lated to aggressive and self-defeating humor, suggesting that this may be the health-
iest of the four humor styles. We consider it to be the closest of the four to the
traditional, narrowly defined concept of humor, which was viewed by Freud (1928) as
a healthy defense mechanism or coping style.
Research examining correlations between the subscales of the HSQ and previous
self-report humor scales provided support for our view that this new measure taps
into distinct dimensions of humor that are not well differentiated (or not even assessed
at all) by the earlier measures (R. A. Martin et al., 2003). For example, the CHS,
although quite strongly related to self-enhancing (as well as affiliative) humor, has also
been found to be correlated with aggressive humor, suggesting that it may not be as
pure a measure of positive humor uses as the self-enhancing humor scale. Worse still,
the MSHS was found to be positively correlated with all four HSQ scales, indicating
that it taps into potentially unhealthy aggressive and self-defeating humor as well as
potentially healthy forms of humor. This may account for the generally weak corre-
lations with well-being measures found in research using the MSHS.
Other humor measures such as the SHRQ, SHQ, and Cheerfulness scale of the
State-Trait Cheerfulness Inventory (STCI-T) were found to be positively correlated
with affiliative and self-enhancing humor, but unrelated to aggressive and self-
defeating humor. Thus, although there is less evidence that these earlier humor meas-
ures capture unhealthy aspects of humor, the addition of the two negative forms of
humor in the HSQ might be useful for exploring these more negative aspects of
humor that have not been assessed by previous scales. Interestingly, with regard to
gender, whereas negligible differences have been found between men and women on
the two presumably healthy styles of humor, men on average tend to have higher
scores on the two potentially negative styles, suggesting that men and women do not
differ in their healthy uses of humor, but men may be more likely to use humor in
unhealthy ways (R. A. Martin et al., 2003).
Our initial studies with the HSQ provided general support for our view that these
different humor styles are differentially related to psychological health and well-being
(R. A. Martin et al., 2003). Affiliative and self-enhancing humor were found to be neg-
atively correlated with anxiety and depression, and positively correlated with self-
esteem and a measure of overall psychological well-being, the correlations with
self-enhancing humor being somewhat stronger than those with affiliative humor. In
contrast, higher scores on self-defeating humor were found to be associated with
greater anxiety, depression, and psychiatric symptoms, and lower self-esteem and
overall well-being. Aggressive and self-defeating humor styles were also both related
to hostility and aggression. Thus, as expected, less use of these negative humor styles
(particularly self-defeating humor) seems to be related to more healthy psychological
functioning.
>0 9 • HUMOR AND MENTAL HEALTH
When the four HSQ scales were entered together into regression equations to
predict the various measures of emotional well-being, sizable multiple correlations
were found (averaging about .50). These correlations were considerably stronger than
those typically found in earlier studies of humor and well-being, indicating that, by
combining uses of humor that are negatively related to well-being with those that are
positively related, we were able to account for a greater proportion of the variance in
well-being variables. With regard to the broad personality dimension of neuroticism,
afnliative humor was found to be unrelated, whereas self-enhancing humor was neg-
atively related, and both aggressive and self-defeating humor were positively related
to this personality factor. Thus, as expected, the different HSQ scales seem to differ-
entiate styles of humor that are positively related, negatively related, and neutral with
regard to neuroticism, suggesting that emotional stability is associated not just with
the presence of certain styles of humor, but also with the absence of other styles. Humor
appears to be neither inherently healthy nor unhealthy; its relation to mental health
depends on how it is used in everyday life.
Several additional recent studies with the HSQ have added to these findings.
Nicholas Kuiper and his colleagues (2004) found that higher scores on self-
enhancing humor were associated with lower levels of depression, anxiety, and
negative affect, and higher levels of self-esteem and positive affect. The pattern of
correlations with affiliative humor was similar, but generally weaker. In contrast, self-
defeating humor showed the exact opposite pattern of correlations: greater use of this
type of humor was associated with higher levels of depression, anxiety, and negative
affect, and lower levels of self-esteem. Aggressive humor, however, was unrelated to
the emotional well-being measures. In another study, Vassilis Saroglou and Christel
Scariot (2002) administered a French translation of the HSQ to Belgian university
and high school students, and found that individuals with higher self-esteem reported
greater use of affiliative humor and lower use of self-defeating humor. Self-defeating
and aggressive humor were also both associated with lower levels of motivation for
academic success.
Paul Frewen and his colleagues similarly found that individuals who reported
higher levels of depressed moods tended to report lower use of self-enhancing and
(to a lesser degree) affiliative humor, and greater use of self-defeating humor (Frewen,
Brinker, Martin, and Dozois, in press). This study also looked at measures of
sociotropy and autonomy, two personality dimensions that have been found to be vul-
nerability factors for depression. Sociotropy refers to the degree to which one's sense
of self- worth is based excessively on one's perceived likableness to others, making one
socially dependent and vulnerable to depression when experiencing interpersonal crit-
icism or rejection. On the other hand, autonomy has to do with the degree to which
one is invested in preserving independence and defining self-worth in terms of per-
sonal achievement, and it is associated with increased vulnerability to depression when
people experience achievement-related failures. After controlling for current depres-
sion levels, sociotropy was found to be negatively related to self-enhancing humor
and positively related to self-defeating humor. Autonomy, in turn, was associated with
both self-defeating and aggressive humor. Thus, negative forms of humor appear to
HUMOR AND EMOTIONAL WELL-BEING 28
be associated with personality traits that make people vulnerable to depression. On
the other hand, self-enhancing humor, being negatively related to sociotropy, may
serve to protect the individual from becoming depressed during experiences of social
rejection.
Previous research has shown that individuals who engage in the cognitive
style of rumination (i.e., those who tend to repeatedly go over negative events and
feelings in their mind) are particularly vulnerable to depression. A recent study of
university students using the HSQ found that individuals with higher scores on self-
enhancing and (more weakly) affiliative humor are less likely to engage in rumination
(M. L. Olson et al., 2005). Moreover, this study found evidence that these two posi-
tive humor styles can buffer the effect of rumination on depression. In particular,
participants with lower scores on these two humor styles showed a strong correlation
between their frequency of rumination and dysphoric mood symptoms, whereas
those with higher humor scores did not show any association between these two
variables.
Overall, the correlational findings obtained so far suggest that self-enhancing
humor is particularly related in a positive way to emotional well-being, supporting
our view that this is an especially healthy humor style. For its part, affiliative humor
seems to be somewhat more weakly related to emotional health, producing correla-
tions that are more in line with those found with previous trait humor measures. In
contrast, self-defeating humor is consistently negatively associated with well-being
measures, indicating that this use of humor to ingratiate oneself with others at one's
own expense and deny the presence of negative emotion is particularly related to
unhealthy functioning. On the other hand, aggressive humor appears to be largely
unrelated to overall psychological well-being. Although earlier theorists such as
Freud, Maslow, and Allport seemed to view aggressive forms of humor as being par-
ticularly problematic for overall psychological health, our research findings do not
provide much support for this view. As we will see later in this chapter, however,
aggressive humor seems to play a particularly negative role in regard to the quality of
one's close interpersonal relationships.
Before leaving this topic, it is important to note that all of these findings are cor-
relational, and they therefore do not permit us to determine the direction of causal-
ity between sense of humor and mental health. For example, the frequent use of
self-defeating humor may cause people to be more prone to depression, have lower
self-esteem, and so on, but it is equally possible that people engage in this humor
style as a consequence of having low levels of psychological well-being. Similarly,
although the frequent use of self-enhancing humor may cause people to be less prone
to emotional disturbance, it is also possible that being more psychologically healthy
causes people to use humor in this way. It may also be the case that humor styles
and components of psychological health have no causal connection at all, but are both
consequences of a third variable, such as neuroticism. The most we can say at the
present time is that emotional well-being tends to be associated with the presence
of self-enhancing and affiliative uses of humor and the absence of self-defeating
humor.
52 9 • HUMOR AND MENTAL HEALTH
One way for researchers to address these questions of causality may be through
the use of daily experience methods or event-sampling procedures, in which the use
of different styles of humor as well as various aspects of psychological well-being are
assessed repeatedly in individuals over a period of days or weeks (Reis and Gable,
2000). By examining time-lagged associations, it may be possible to determine
whether more frequent use of particular styles of humor is followed or preceded by
changes in well-being over hours or days, providing some indication of the direction
of causality in these associations. I will have more to say about these sorts of research
methods later in this chapter.
HUMOR, STRESS, AND COPING
A second general way humor may potentially be beneficial to mental (as well as
physical) health has to do with its use in coping with stressful life experiences. A con-
siderable amount of research has shown that high levels of stressful events, such as
natural disasters, relationship conflicts, work pressures, and financial problems, can
have adverse effects on one's mental and physical health, producing such negative out-
comes as emotional disturbance, cognitive inefficiency, and behavioral impairments
(A. K. Johnson and Anderson, 1990; Sanderson, 2004).
However, these sorts of negative outcomes of stress are not inevitable. Based on
the theoretical framework of Richard Lazarus and his colleagues (e.g., Lazarus and
Folkman, 1984), a great deal of research has shown that psychological appraisal and
coping processes play an important role in determining whether or not potentially
stressful life experiences result in adverse physiological and psychological outcomes.
Over the years, many theorists have suggested that the ability to respond with humor
in the face of stress and adversity may be an important and effective coping skill
(Freud, 1928; Lefcourt, 2001; Lefcourt and Martin, 1986). Norman Dixon (1980)
even suggested that humor may have evolved in humans specifically for this
purpose.
Many authors have noted that humor, because it inherently involves incongruity
and multiple interpretations, provides a way for individuals to shift perspective on a
stressful situation, reappraising it from a new and less-threatening point of view. As a
consequence of this humorous reappraisal, the situation becomes less stressful and
more manageable, and the individual is less likely to experience a stress response
(Dixon, 1980). Walter O'Connell (1976) described humorous people as being "skilled
in rapid perceptual-cognitive switches in frames of reference" (p. 327), an ability that
presumably enables them to reappraise a problem situation, distance themselves from
its immediate threat, and thereby reduce the often paralyzing feelings of anxiety and
helplessness. Similarly, Rollo May (1953) stated that humor has the function of "pre-
serving the self ... It is the healthy way of feeling a 'distance' between one's self and
the problem, a way of standing off and looking at one's problem with perspective"
(p. 54).
HUMOR. STRESS, AND COPING 28
As noted in Chapter 2, superiority theory, which views humor as a form of playful
aggression, can also be seen as a basis for conceptualizing humor as a coping mech-
anism. By poking fun at other people and situations that would normally be viewed
as threatening or constricting, one is able to gain a sense of liberation and freedom
from threat and thereby experience positive feelings of well-being and efficacy. As
Horace Kallen (1968) wrote, "I laugh at that which has endangered or degraded or
has fought to suppress, enslave, or destroy what I cherish and has failed. My laugh-
ter signalizes its failure and my own liberation" (p. 59). Other authors, taking an exis-
tential approach, have emphasized the sense of liberation, mastery, and self-respect
provided by humor in the face of adversity (Knox, 1951; Mindess, 1971). Thus, as a
means of asserting one's superiority through playful aggression, humor is a way of
refusing to be overcome by the people and situations that threaten one's well-being.
At the same time, though, with the use of aggressive forms of humor in coping there
is a risk of cynicism, hostility, and impairment of social relationships.
Although coping humor may at times involve an aggressive element, some theo-
rists have also emphasized the importance of being able to laugh at one's own faults,
failures, and limitations, while maintaining a positive sense of self-esteem. Gordon
Allport (1950) stated, for example, that "the neurotic who learns to laugh at himself
may be on the way to self-management, perhaps to cure" (p. 280). By not taking
oneself too seriously, one is able to let go of excessively perfectionistic expectations
while remaining motivated to achieve realistic goals. There is an important distinc-
tion, however, between self-deprecating humor based on a fundamental sense of self-
worth and excessively self-disparaging humor arising from a negative self-concept, as
measured by the self-defeating humor scale of the HSQ.
Experimental Investigations of Humor as a Stress Moderator
A number of experiments have been conducted to investigate the effectiveness of
a humor manipulation in mitigating the emotional or psychophysiological effects of
mildly stressful laboratory stressors. Herbert Lefcourt and I (Lefcourt and Martin,
1986) instructed university students to make up either a humorous narrative, a non-
humorous "intellectual" narrative, or no narrative while they were watching a
silent film entitled Subincision, which depicts a rather gory and evidently painful cir-
cumcision ritual performed on adolescent boys in a tribe of Australian aborigines. The
results revealed that, among female participants, those who created a humorous
narrative (as compared to those in the other two conditions) reported less negative
emotions and displayed fewer behavioral indicators of distress (e.g., averted gaze,
grimacing, hand-rubbing) while watching the film, providing evidence of a stress-
moderating effect of humor. The male participants, however, showed minimal
distress in all three conditions, suggesting that the film was not very stressful for
them.
A similar methodology was used by Michelle Newman and Arthur Stone (1996)
in an experiment in which male college students were instructed to create either a
54 9 • HUMOR AND MENTAL HEALTH
humorous or a serious narrative while watching a film depicting gruesome accidents
in a lumber mill. Compared to those in the serious narrative condition, the partici-
pants in the humorous condition reported less emotional distress and had lower skin
conductance and heart rate and higher skin temperature for up to 15 minutes fol-
lowing the film, indicating a reduced stress response. Taken together, these studies
provided some evidence that participants who actively create humor to reframe a
potentially stressful situation have a lower stress response, as measured by self-rated
moods, behaviors, and physiological reactions (see also Lehman et al., 2001).
Instead of having participants create humorous narratives during stressful situa-
tions in the laboratory, other researchers have used comedy videotapes as a humor
manipulation. Arnie Cann and his colleagues showed male and female participants
either a humorous stand-up comedy video, a nonhumorous nature video, or no video,
after they had viewed a stressful segment of a movie depicting an airplane crash (Cann,
Holt, and Calhoun, 1999). Analyses of self-rated moods following the intervention
revealed that the humorous video enhanced positive emotions but did not reduce
anxiety relative to the nonhumorous video.
In a subsequent experiment, Cann and his colleagues compared the effects of
exposure to a humorous versus a neutral videotape either before or after participants
watched a stressful film depicting scenes of death (Cann, Calhoun, and Nance, 2000).
Regardless of whether the intervention preceded or followed the stressful film, the
humorous video produced lower ratings of depression and anger and higher positive
moods compared to the neutral video. For anxiety-related moods, however, the
humorous intervention was only effective when it was presented before the stressful
film rather than after it. The authors suggested that the elevated positive emotions
associated with humor may serve to counteract feelings of depression and anger,
whereas the effects of humor on anxiety may be more cognitively mediated: humor
preceding the stressor might work as a cognitive prime, changing the way subsequent
events are interpreted and thereby reducing subsequent anxiety.
In addition to the use of emotionally distressing films, researchers interested in
the effects of humor on stress have employed various types of frustrating tasks, such
as unsolvable anagrams and difficult mental arithmetic problems, to produce mild
stress in the laboratory. One study found that exposure to humorous cartoons miti-
gated the performance-impairing effect of working on unsolvable anagrams (Trice,
1985). Another experiment similarly found that exposure to a humorous videotape,
compared to a nonhumorous video, was effective in reducing anxiety following an
unsolvable anagram task, but only among male participants (Abel and Maxwell, 2002).
However, a study using a 10-minute mental arithmetic task to induce a mild state of
anxiety found no differences among comedy, relaxation, and neutral videotapes on
state anxiety, heart rate, or skin conductance (White and Winzelberg, 1992). Although
this study failed to demonstrate a stress-moderating effect of humor, this may have
been due to the minimally stressful nature of the arithmetic task.
In an experiment by Nancy Yovetich and her colleagues, stress was induced by
falsely informing participants that they would receive a painful electric shock 12
minutes later (Yovetich, Dale, and Hudak, 1990). While waiting for the supposed
HUMOR, STRESS, AND COPING 28!
shock, the participants listened either to a humorous audiotape, a nonhumorous tape,
or no tape. Overall, the participants showed increasing levels of self-rated anxiety and
heart rate across the 12 -minute period, indicating increased anticipatory anxiety.
However, those in the humorous tape condition showed a less steep increase in self-
reported anxiety (but no difference in heart rate) as compared to those in the other
two conditions, providing some evidence of a stress-buffering effect of humor.
In summary, although the results have not always replicated, these experimental
laboratory studies provide some support for the hypothesized stress-buffering effects
of humor. When participants actively create humor during mildly stressful experi-
ences, or when they are exposed to comedy before or after such events, they tend to
report more positive and less negative moods and show less stress-related physiolog-
ical arousal as compared to participants in control groups. These studies extend the
findings of the laboratory experiments described earlier, indicating that the general
effects of humor on moods also occur in mildly stressful conditions.
Although these lab experiments allow researchers to identify the direction of
causality between humor and stress responses, their rather artificial nature makes it
difficult to generalize the findings to everyday experiences. In particular, the stressors
used in these experiments are much milder and of shorter duration than real-life stres-
sors, and the humor manipulations with solitary subjects in the laboratory are only an
approximation of the way humor is typically experienced in everyday life. It is there-
fore important to augment these laboratory findings with more naturalistic types of
research examining the use of humor in coping with real-life stressors. I will discuss
this sort of research in the following sections.
Correlational Studies of Sense of Humor and Coping Styles
As we saw earlier, theorists have suggested a number of possible ways in which
humor might serve to mitigate the effects of stress. For example, taking a humorous
perspective on a stressful situation might enable individuals to alter their frame of ref-
erence, changing appraisals of negative threat into ones of positive challenge, and
increasing feelings of mastery and control over the situation. Other potential coping-
related functions of humor include enhancing social support, denying reality, venting
aggressive feelings, and providing distraction. A number of studies have explored these
different hypotheses by examining correlations between various sense of humor scales
and measures assessing the types of cognitive appraisals and coping styles participants
typically use when dealing with stress.
In one study, Nick Kuiper and colleagues (1993) examined the relationship
between the Coping Humor Scale and university students' cognitive appraisals of their
first midterm examination in an Introductory Psychology course. The results showed
that, prior to the exam, students with higher scores on the CHS appraised it as more
of a positive challenge rather than a negative threat. Following the exam, those with
high CHS scores reappraised the exam as being more important and positively chal-
lenging if they had done well on it, but lowered their importance and challenge ratings
if they had done poorly. They also adjusted their expectations of how well they would
56 9 • HUMOR AND MENTAL HEALTH
do on the next exam in a realistic manner, based on their performance on the previ-
ous one. In contrast, those with low CHS scores rated the exam as being more impor-
tant if they did poorly rather than well on it, and failed to adjust their expectations
about the next exam according to their past performance.
Higher CHS scores were also found to be associated with lower scores on a
measure of dysfunctional attitudes involving unrealistic and perfectionistic expecta-
tions about achievement and social relationships. These findings provide some
support for the idea that one way a sense of humor may relate to better coping with
stress has to do with the types of cognitive appraisals that individuals make about
potential stressors. Those with a greater tendency to use humor in coping with stress
appear to appraise potentially stressful situations as more challenging rather than
threatening, and to evaluate their own performance and adjust their expectations for
future performance in a less perfectionistic and more realistic and self-protective
manner.
The relation between sense of humor and appraisal processes was also investi-
gated in other research by Nicholas Kuiper and his colleagues (Kuiper, McKenzie,
and Belanger, 1995). In one study they had participants complete a negative life events
measure for the past month, and then asked them questions about the degree to which
they were able to change their perspective or point of view when attempting to cope
with these stressful events. Individuals with high scores on the CHS, in comparison
with low scorers, reported that they were more likely to make a conscious effort to
view their problems from alternate perspectives and were better able to do so, and
that these changes in perspective resulted in more positive perceptions of the events.
In a second study, they examined subjects' cognitive appraisals while completing a
challenging picture-drawing task. Participants with higher sense of humor scores
appraised the task as being more of a positive challenge and less of a negative threat
and reported putting more effort into accomplishing it, providing further evidence
that individual differences in humor are related to different ways of appraising poten-
tially stressful events.
Several studies have also examined correlations between sense of humor scales
and measures of people's typical styles of coping with stress. One study (Kuiper et al.,
1993) found that the CHS was positively correlated with both emotional distancing
(e.g., "Don't let it get to me;" "Refuse to think too much about it") and a confron-
tive coping style (e.g., "Stand my ground and fight for what I want"), suggesting that
the use of humor in coping involves both emotional self-protection and active con-
frontation of problems. A study of humor and coping in women business executives
(P. S. Fry, 1995) found that the CHS and SHRQ were positively associated with both
emotion-focused (i.e., regulation of one's emotional reactions) and existential (i.e.,
taking a detached, philosophical approach to problems) coping orientations. Specific
coping strategies associated with humor included seeking practical and emotional
social support, expressiveness (venting emotions), tension-reduction (e.g., use of relax-
ation techniques), and acceptance ("Accept each day as it comes;" "No matter how
bad things are, they could always be worse").
HUMOR, STRESS, AND COPING 28
In another study examining correlations between several self-report humor scales
(CHS, SHRQ, and SHQ) and a measure of defensive coping styles, these sense of
humor measures were generally found to be related to the coping styles of mini-
mization (denial), replacement (sublimation), substitution (displacement), and rever-
sal (reaction formation), although the pattern of correlations differed for different
humor scales and for males and females (Rim, 1988). Finally, a study using the MSHS
found that higher scores on this humor scale were associated with greater use of
planful problem solving, positive reappraisal, distancing oneself, and emotional self-
management (Abel, 2002).
Overall, these studies suggest that high-humor individuals tend to have more
realistic and flexible and less threat-related cognitive appraisals of potentially
stressful situations, and that they tend to deal with stress using a variety of coping
strategies and defenses, particularly those involving self-protective cognitive refrain-
ing and emotional management. Once again, however, it is important to note that
the correlational approach of these studies does not permit us to determine the direc-
tion of causality. It may be that humor directly contributes to these cognitive appraisal
and coping styles, but it is also possible that humor is simply a by-product of these
styles of coping, or that both humor and associated coping styles are independent
consequences of some other traits (e.g., extraversion). Also, this trait approach to
measuring humor and coping styles does not provide much insight into the actual
processes involved when humor is used in coping, or the context in which this
occurs.
Humor in Coping with Specific Life Stressors
There is a great deal of anecdotal evidence, as well as some empirical research,
indicating that humor can be beneficial for emotional survival in dealing with extreme
and uncontrollable stressful situations such as prisoner of war and concentration
camps. One study evaluated the psychological health of 82 surviving crew members
of the USS Pueblo shortly after their release from 1 1 months of imprisonment in North
Korea in 1969 (C. V. Ford and Spaulding, 1973). Humor was one of several coping
strategies that were found to be significantly associated with better psychological
adjustment. Coping humor in this stressful situation took the form of joking about
the characteristics of captors, giving funny nicknames to the guards and fellow pris-
oners, and telling jokes to one another.
More recently, Linda Henman (2001) reported a qualitative study based on inter-
views with more than 60 American servicemen who had been prisoners of war (POWs)
in Vietnam. Despite being in captivity for over seven years and enduring isolation,
starvation, torture, and beatings, these individuals showed a remarkable level of adjust-
ment. When asked about their methods of coping, most of the participants empha-
sized the importance of humor in maintaining their resilience. Humor was described
as a way of eliciting positive emotions, maintaining group cohesion and morale, and
fighting back at the captors. By cracking jokes about the guards and about the
HUMOR AND MENTAL HEALTH
hardships they endured, the POWs were able to gain a sense of mastery and invinci-
bility in a situation over which they had no real control. It is worth noting that the
use of humor in coping occurred primarily during interactions among the POWs,
rather than while they were alone. One participant observed that "the larger the
group, the more lighthearted things were. The smaller the group, the more intense
things were" (p. 86). Some of the prisoners even risked torture to tell a joke through
the walls to another prisoner who needed cheering up.
The importance of humor in coping with atrocities has also been emphasized by
concentration camp survivors. In recounting his experiences as a prisoner in a Nazi
concentration camp during World War II, Viktor Frankl (1984) described humor as
"another of the soul's weapons in the fight for self-preservation" (p. 63). Recognizing
the importance of humor in maintaining morale, he and his fellow prisoners agreed
to tell each other amusing stories every day. One favorite form of humor involved
joking about the ways their experience of imprisonment might affect them after their
liberation. For example, one prisoner joked that at future dinner engagements they
might forget themselves and ask the hostess to ladle the soup from the bottom of the
pot to get the treasured vegetables instead of the watery broth on top. Their jokes
also included a good deal of mockery of the guards, which gave them a feeling of
superiority over their captors. Such uses of humor were also depicted in Roberto
Benigni's 1997 movie, Life is Beautiful, in which a Jewish father engages in humorous
antics to shield his son from the horrors of a Nazi death camp, denying reality by pre-
tending that the Holocaust is nothing but a game in which the winner gets to ride in
a tank.
Although humor appears to be an effective way of coping with the extreme and
uncontrollable horror of being a prisoner of war, research on the use of humor in less
severe and more controllable stressful situations has been less clear-cut. For example,
studies investigating the use of humor in coping with high-stress occupations have
produced mixed results. One study provided evidence for the effectiveness of humor
in coping with stress among soldiers undergoing an intensive combat training course
in the Israeli army (Bizi, Keinan, and Beit-Hallahmi, 1988). Humor production and
appreciation were assessed using both self-report measures and peer ratings, and the
quality of coping under stress was evaluated using ratings by peers and commanding
officers. Greater peer-rated (but not self-rated) humor was found to be significantly
related to higher peer ratings of performance under stress and higher commander
ratings of initiative and responsibility. This was especially true for active humor (gen-
erating joking comments rather than merely laughing at others' humor). These find-
ings were interpreted as providing support for the view that a sense of humor is
associated with better coping during stressful military training.
In contrast, however, a recent study of health care staff working with AIDS and
cancer patients suggested that the use of humor as a coping strategy may actually have
negative rather than positive consequences (Dorz et al., 2003). The coping styles of
528 physicians and nurses in 20 hospitals in northern Italy were assessed using a
measure called the Coping Orientations to Problem Experiences (COPE) (Carver,
Scheier, and Weintraub, 1989), which contains a scale assessing the use of humor in
HUMOR, STRESS, AND COPING 28
coping. In addition, the participants completed measures of anxiety, depression, and
emotional burnout. Surprisingly, the data analyses revealed that higher levels of
humor in coping were associated with greater emotional exhaustion and feelings of
depersonalization. Since this study was correlational, the direction of causality
between humor use and burnout is unclear. Nonetheless, the results cast some
doubt on the overall effectiveness of humor in coping in a high-stress health care
setting.
Some qualitative research on the use of humor in stressful occupations helps to
shed some light on these puzzling findings. Using a participant observer approach,
Joan Sayre (2001) observed the use of humor among staff in a psychiatric unit. She
found that it could be divided into two broad categories, a fairly benign "whimsical"
type (incongruous witticisms, bravado, and self-denigrating humor) and a more
aggressive "sarcastic" type (discounting, malicious, and gallows humor). Sarcastic
humor was more common than whimsical humor among the staff, and most of the
humor was directed at making fun of patient behaviors when out of earshot of the
patients. Although the relative benefits of the different types of humor were not
directly tested in this study, the author suggested that, whereas some of these uses of
humor seemed to be beneficial in managing anxiety in a socially acceptable manner,
the more aggressive forms appeared to promote negative, cynical attitudes toward
patients, which might actually have impaired therapeutic effectiveness and contributed
to morale problems.
A similarly mixed view of the benefits of humor emerged in a qualitative study in
which emergency personnel were interviewed about their methods of coping with the
stress of handling dead bodies following major disasters such as airplane crashes and
explosions (McCarroll et al., 1993). Although some participants viewed humor as an
important tension reducer, others expressed reservations about its appropriateness.
Similar reservations were also expressed in a review of research relating to the poten-
tial benefits and risks of the use of humor for coping in emergency work (C. Moran
and Massam, 1997). Overall, then, the use of humor in coping with work-related stress
seems to have mixed benefits. As we have seen earlier in this chapter, probably not all
forms of humor are beneficial for coping; instead, whether or not it contributes to
better coping likely depends on the style or type of humor used.
Research on the use of humor in coping with life-threatening illness has also
yielded somewhat equivocal findings. In one study, 59 women who had been diag-
nosed with breast cancer were asked to complete measures of moods and coping
strategies (using the COPE) before surgery, immediately after surgery, and at 3-, 6-,
and 12 -month follow-ups (Carver et al., 1993). Greater use of humor in coping
was found to be associated with reduced emotional distress, but this relation was
significant at only two of the five assessment times (three-month and six-month
follow-up).
In a larger study of coping with breast cancer, 236 patients completed the COPE
as well as measures of emotional distress (Culver et al., 2004). No significant corre-
lations were found between humor in coping and any of the measures of emotional
distress, raising questions about the overall effectiveness of humor as a means of
O 9 • HUMOR AND MENTAL HEALTH
coping with breast cancer. However, a limitation of both of these studies, as well as
some of the research on coping with work-related stress described earlier, was the use
of the COPE humor scale. This test has been shown to be positively correlated with
all four subscales of the Humor Styles Questionnaire, indicating that it does not dis-
tinguish between potentially beneficial affiliative and self-enhancing humor and
potentially detrimental aggressive and self-defeating humor styles (R. A. Martin et al.,
2003).
Using observational methods instead of relying on self-report humor scales, a lon-
gitudinal study of bereavement by George Bonanno and Dacher Keltner (1997) pro-
vided evidence for a beneficial effect of benign humor in coping with the death of
one's spouse. Men and women who had lost their spouse six months previously were
videotaped during an interview about their relationship with their deceased partner.
The tapes were subsequently coded for Duchenne and non-Duchenne smiles and
laughter, and measures of emotional adjustment and physical health were obtained at
14 and 25 months postloss. Analyses showed that a greater frequency of Duchenne
smiling and laughter (indicating genuine amusement) during the interview was a sig-
nificant predictor of fewer grief symptoms (e.g., intrusive memories of the de-
ceased, emotional numbness, inability to part with the deceased person's possessions,
depressed mood) at 14 and 25 months, even after controlling for moods at the time
of the interview. Thus, the ability to experience humor early in bereavement, as
demonstrated by smiling and laughter showing genuine mirth while talking about the
deceased spouse, was associated with better emotional adjustment more than a year
later. Further analyses of the same data by Keltner and Bonanno (1997) found that
individuals who displayed more frequent Duchenne (but not non-Duchenne) laugh-
ter during the interview reported more positive and less negative moods and showed
a greater dissociation between verbal reports of distress and autonomic arousal, sug-
gesting that one of the benefits of genuine humor in coping may be that it enables
the individual to dissociate from negative emotions.
In summary, although many authors have proposed that humor may be a benefi-
cial way of coping with occupational stress, bereavement, illness, and other major
stressors (e.g., Sumners, 1988; van Wormer and Boes, 1997), empirical evidence for
such benefits is limited and somewhat mixed. Once again, the inconsistent findings
may be due to a failure on the part of researchers to distinguish among different uses
of humor, some of which may be effective for coping in some types of situations but
less so in others, while other uses of humor may actually be detrimental in coping
with certain stressors. For example, highly aggressive or macabre gallows humor may
be almost essential to survival in the nearly hopeless situation of a prison camp, but
may contribute to feelings of cynicism, alienation, and burnout in a stressful work
environment where other more constructive forms of coping are available. In addi-
tion, mildly self-deprecating and whimsical uses of humor might enhance group
morale and cohesiveness in a work setting, but frequent teasing and practical jokes
might impair morale. Because of the multifaceted functions of humor and their widely
varied social and emotional effects, it seems to be overly simplistic to view humor in
HUMOR, STRESS, AND COPING 29
general as a purely beneficial method of coping. Further research is clearly needed to
investigate in more detail the potential benefits and pitfalls of different styles of humor
in coping with particular stressors.
Sense of Humor as a Stress Moderator
The idea that humor is beneficial for coping with stress suggests that people with
a greater sense of humor should be less likely to suffer the adverse emotional and
physiological consequences of stressful life events. Although high-humor individuals
may be just as likely as their low-humor counterparts to experience stressors such as
financial losses, occupational pressures, unemployment, death of a loved one, and rela-
tionship breakups, their more frequent use of humor might enable them to appraise
these stressors as less threatening, garner more social support, and generally cope
more effectively, resulting in less likelihood of becoming emotionally distressed and
physically ill as a consequence of the stressors.
A popular way of testing this hypothesis is the stress-moderator paradigm (Cohen
and Edwards, 1989), in which researchers use questionnaires and other testing pro-
cedures to assess three types of variables: (1) some aspect of sense of humor measured
as a personality trait; (2) the frequency of major stressful life events or minor daily
hassles experienced over a specified period of time in the recent past, such as the pre-
ceding six months; and (3) current levels of particular adaptational outcomes, such as
prevailing levels of depression or anxiety or the number of different illness symptoms
experienced recently. By using hierarchical multiple regression analyses with a stres-
sors sense of humor interaction term, researchers can determine whether the strength
of the association between the frequency of stressors and adaptational outcomes varies
as a function of level of sense of humor. The stress-buffering hypothesis is supported
when the correlation between stressors and negative outcomes is found to become
weaker as sense of humor increases across participants, and when high levels of stres-
sors are associated with less disturbance among high-humor as compared to low-
humor individuals (Figure 7). A number of studies using this paradigm have been
conducted over the past two decades, using a variety of different sense of humor tests,
stressor measures, and outcome variables.
Herbert Lefcourt and I reported three studies that employed different methods
of assessing sense of humor and found fairly consistent evidence of a stress-
moderating effect of humor (R. A. Martin and Lefcourt, 1983). In each of these
studies, we used a life events checklist to assess the number of major life stressors that
our undergraduate participants had experienced during the preceding year, and a test
of overall mood disturbance (depression, anxiety, tension, anger, fatigue) as our
outcome measure. Each study employed different methods of assessing sense of
humor. In the first study, using self-report trait humor measures, we found a signifi-
cant stress-buffering effect with the SHRQ, CHS, and SHQ-L, indicating that indi-
viduals with higher scores on these measures were less likely to report disturbed
moods after experiencing high levels of stressful experiences.
HUMOR AND MENTAL HEALTH
High
TJ
O
O
Low
Low Coping
Humor x
X
X
X
High Coping
Humor
Low
Negative Life Events
High
FIGURE 7 Stress-moderating effect of sense of humor. As the number of stressful life events
increases, individuals with higher scores on the Coping Humor Scale show a less steep increase
in mood disturbance as compared to those with lower scores on this humor measure (from
Martin & Lefcourt, 1983).
In the second study, we assessed sense of humor using a behavioral measure of
humor production ability. Participants were asked to make up a humorous narrative
in the laboratory, describing a number of objects in a funny way, and these mono-
logues were subsequently rated for overall funniness. Once again, the results revealed
a significant stress-moderating effect: individuals who were better able to make up a
funny monologue on demand in this rather difficult task showed less likelihood of
becoming emotionally distressed following high levels of life stress.
The third study employed a similar humor-production approach, this time involv-
ing an even more stressful laboratory situation. The participants were instructed to
create a humorous narrative while watching the Subincision film, and when the rated
funniness of their narratives was used as the measure of humor in regression analy-
ses, the results once again revealed a significant stress-buffering effect of humor pro-
duction ability. We speculated that those individuals who were able to create funnier
narratives in these mildly stressful conditions in the laboratory might also be the ones
who tend to engage in humor more frequently during times of stress in their every-
day lives, enabling them to cope more effectively and therefore become less emo-
tionally distressed.
These encouraging initial findings were subsequently followed up in a number of
similar studies by various researchers, some of which replicated our stress-moderator
findings while others did not. One study using both cross-sectional (within one time
HUMOR, STRESS, AND COPING
period) and prospective analyses (assessing stressors and sense of humor at one time
point to predict prevailing moods two months later), found a significant stress-
moderating effect of the CHS and SHRQ in the prediction of depression but not
anxiety (Nezu et al., 1988).
A study of coping among women business executives also found significant stress-
buffering effects of the CHS and SHRQ using a measure of minor daily hassles as the
stressor measure and tests of self-esteem and emotional burnout as the outcome meas-
ures (P. S. Fry, 1995). Another study found a significant stress-moderating effect of
the MSHS in the prediction of illness symptoms and anxiety, although the anxiety
finding was only significant for male participants (Abel, 1998). In addition, my student
James Dobbin and I found stress-buffering effects of three self-report humor
scales on the negative relationship between daily hassles and levels of salivary
immunoglobulin-A, a measure of immunity, indicating that high-humor individuals,
compared to those with less of a sense of humor, were less likely to have reduced
immunity after experiencing high numbers of stressful hassles (R. A. Martin and
Dobbin, 1988).
Taking a somewhat different approach, Nicholas Kuiper, Kathy Dance, and I
(1992) used the stress-moderator paradigm to examine interactions between sense of
humor measures and both positive and negative life events in predicting positive rather
than negative moods. Consistent with the stress-buffering hypothesis, we found sig-
nificant interactions between the frequency of stressful negative life events and the
CHS, SHRQ, and SHQ-M in predicting positive affect. Among individuals with low
scores on these humor scales, more frequent negative events were associated with
lower levels of positive moods, whereas those with high humor scores tended to main-
tain high levels of positive moods regardless of the number of negative events they
had experienced. Analyses using the frequency of recent positive life events (e.g.,
enjoyable experiences, successful achievements) in the place of negative stressors also
revealed significant interactions with the two subscales of the SHQ in predicting pos-
itive affect, indicating that the frequency of positive events was more strongly related
to increased positive moods for high-humor as compared to low-humor individuals.
These results suggested that, besides helping one to maintain one's positive moods
during times of stress, a sense of humor seems to enhance the enjoyment of positive
events.
In a later study, Kuiper and I (1998b) employed a daily diary approach to inves-
tigate the stress-buffering hypothesis. In this study, adult men and women from the
community were asked to keep a three-day record of each time they laughed, as well
as completing measures of the number of stressful events they experienced over the
course of each day and their levels of positive and negative moods each evening. Inter-
estingly, correlational analyses revealed that people who laughed more frequently over
the three days did not necessarily experience more positive or less negative moods
overall. Instead, the relationship between laughter and moods depended on their levels
of daily stress. In particular, a significant stress-moderating effect revealed that greater
numbers of stressful life events were associated with more negative moods, but only
among individuals with a low frequency of laughter. In contrast, individuals with a
HUMOR AND MENTAL HEALTH
higher frequency of daily laughter had relatively low levels of negative moods regard-
less of their stress levels. Similar effects were found with positive moods, but only
among men.
A recent study examined the potential role of humor in coping with the effects
of mathematics performance anxiety in women (T. E. Ford et al., 2004). Female
college students were administered a mathematics test in either high- or low-threat
conditions. In the high-threat condition, they were told that this test assesses math-
ematical aptitude and has been found to be more difficult for women than men; in
the low-threat condition, they were told that it assesses the process of general problem
solving and that men and women tend to perform equally well on it. In support of
the stress-buffering hypothesis, the results revealed a significant interaction between
scores on the CHS and threat condition in predicting performance on the test and
self-reported anxiety. Whereas all participants performed well on the test and had low
anxiety scores in the low-threat condition, greater coping humor was related to better
test performance and lower anxiety in the high-threat condition. These results sug-
gested that the use of humor in coping with stress may reduce the effects of stereo-
type threat on women's mathematics-related anxiety and performance.
Although the foregoing research was generally quite supportive of the hypothe-
sis that a sense of humor may buffer the adverse psychological effects of stress, some
other investigations have failed to replicate these findings. One early study found no
evidence of a stress-buffering effect of humor on depression or anxiety (Safranek and
Schill, 1982). However, sense of humor was assessed in this study by means of a humor
appreciation test in which participants were asked to rate the funniness of several cat-
egories of jokes. The null results may have been due to the fact that the enjoyment
of various types of jokes likely has little to do with the degree to which individuals
actually use humor in coping with life stress (Lefcourt and Martin, 1986).
A more serious challenge to the stress-buffering hypothesis came from a study by
Albert Porterfield (1987) with more than 200 participants that did not find any evi-
dence of stress-moderating effects of humor using the CHS and SHRQ as humor
measures, the same test of major life stressors that Lefcourt and I had used in our
original studies, and measures of depression and physical illness symptoms as the
outcome variables. Another study with more than 700 participants also failed to find
a stress-moderating effect of the CHS in predicting physical illness symptoms
(Korotkov and Hannah, 1994). Similarly, a study of 334 undergraduates did not find
a significant stress-moderating effect of coping humor on mood disturbance (Labott
and Martin, 1987).
Even more confusing results were found in a study by Craig Anderson and Lynn
Arnoult (1989). In this study, undergraduates completed the CHS, a measure of major
life stressors, and tests of negative affect, depression, insomnia, physical illness symp-
toms, and an overall health rating. No evidence of a stress-moderating effect of coping
humor was found on negative affect, depression, or illness symptoms. On the other
hand, the interaction between CHS and stressors was significant in the prediction of
overall wellness and insomnia. However, closer examination of the interaction
revealed that the results for wellness were in the wrong direction: high-humor
HUMOR, STRESS, AND COPING
individuals showed a stronger association between stressful events and poor health
than did low-humor individuals. Only the results for insomnia were in the predicted
direction.
A study by James Overholser (1992) also produced some results contradicting the
stress-buffering hypothesis. Undergraduate participants completed three different
types of humor measures: the CHS, humor appreciation (participants' funniness
ratings of a set of cartoons), and humor production ability (rated funniness of cartoon
captions created by participants). The outcome measures were tests of depression,
loneliness, and self-esteem. Regression analyses using the CHS revealed a significant
interaction with major life stressors only in the prediction of depression, among
females but not males. However, the correlation tables reveal that this effect was in
the wrong direction: females with high CHS scores showed a stronger association
between stress and depression than did those with low scores on this humor test. A
few significant interactions were also found between stressors and humor production
ability in predicting loneliness (for both males and females) and self-esteem (for
females only). However, since the direction of these effects was not reported, it is
unknown whether they also were in the wrong direction.
In summary, the stress-moderator research using the multiple regression
approach has yielded some rather inconsistent evidence for stress-buffering effects of
a sense of humor. Nine studies found at least some significant stress-moderating
effects, three obtained no significant results, and two produced results in the wrong
direction. There does not seem to be any clear pattern to the particular humor scales,
stressor measures, or outcome variables that did and did not produce significant find-
ings. Although there are enough positive findings in this research to warrant some
optimism about the stress-buffering potential of a sense of humor, it is difficult to
discern from this research which particular uses of humor are beneficial for coping
with which sorts of stressors to produce which types of outcomes.
Process Approaches to Investigating Humor in Coping
The inconsistent patterns of findings from the stress-moderator studies described
in the previous section may be due in part to several inherent weaknesses of this
research methodology (Somerfield and McCrae, 2000). These include reliance on trait
measures of humor, retrospective assessment of stressors occurring over a period of
time, and use of a between-person, cross-sectional design. Since the variables are typ-
ically assessed at only one point in time, this stress-moderator paradigm provides only
a static "snapshot" of what is an inherently dynamic coping process. Furthermore, a
high score on a trait measure of sense of humor does not necessarily mean that an
individual actually used humor to cope with the particular stressors that are measured
by the life events checklists. Consequently, this approach does not allow researchers
to examine directly how particular types of humor are used on a day-to-day basis to
cope with specific ongoing stressors.
Howard Tennen and colleagues have advocated the use of a more "real-time"
approach to stress and coping research, assessing proximal stressors, coping efforts,
HUMOR AND MENTAL HEALTH
and adaptational outcome variables repeatedly in individuals as they occur over a
period of days or weeks (Tennen et al., 2000). By capturing these variables closer to
their actual occurrence, researchers can minimize recall error while studying coping
processes within individuals over time. Such data can be analyzed using multilevel
analysis procedures such as Hierarchical Linear Modeling (HLM; Bryk and
Raudenbush, 1992), which combine the advantages of both an idiographic and a
nomothetic approach. This approach to analyzing stress-moderating effects of humor
is conceptually similar to the multiple regression method described in the previous
section, but the focus is on changes within individuals over time rather than differ-
ences between individuals at one time. In other words, the methodology enables
researchers to examine whether individuals show evidence of higher or lower levels
of well-being on days when they engage in particular styles of humor to cope with
particular types of stressors, relative to other days when they experience similar
stressors but do not use those humor styles.
So far, this process-oriented approach has been used in only one study examin-
ing potential stress-buffering effects of humor, which was conducted by my former
graduate student, Patricia Doris (2004), as part of her PhD research. Twice a week
for three weeks, university students participating in this study were asked to log onto
an Internet website at the end of the day and complete a brief questionnaire, record-
ing their stressful experiences, negative moods, and uses of humor during that day.
The humor questions were modified items from the Humor Styles Questionnaire,
asking participants how frequently they had engaged in affiliative, self-enhancing,
aggressive, and self-defeating styles of humor that day. Thus, humor was assessed in
terms of the frequency with which individuals engaged in various humor behaviors
on a particular day, rather than their typical or habitual humor tendencies, as in
trait measurement approaches. Stressful events and moods were also assessed for the
same day, rather than being measured retrospectively over weeks or months. HLM
analyses were used to examine the interactions between day-to-day stressors and
humor use in relation to daily negative moods both within and between participants
concurrently.
The results revealed significant stress-moderating effects for self-enhancing,
aggressive, and self-defeating humor, but not affiliative humor. In each case, a higher
number of stressful events was associated with more negative moods on days when
participants did not engage in these types of humor, whereas stressful events did not
result in such negative moods on days in which participants engaged more frequently
in these three humor styles. Although these findings will need to be replicated before
we can place much confidence in them, they provide preliminary evidence for the
stress-buffering effects of three of the four HSQ humor styles.
The results with self-enhancing humor were exactly as expected, suggesting that
the use of this healthy style of humor to cope with stress is an effective way of regu-
lating one's moods when experiencing daily stressors. The finding of similar results
with both aggressive and self-defeating humor may at first seem surprising, but they
also make some sense. As suggested earlier, although aggressive uses of humor may
be potentially injurious to relationships in the long run, aggressively making fun of
people and situations that are perceived as threatening to one's well-being may be a
INTERPERSONAL ASPECTS OF HUMOR IN MENTAL HEALTH 29
way of reducing immediate feelings of threat and associated negative moods. Simi-
larly with self-defeating humor, on days when one is experiencing a great deal of stress,
the use of humor to ingratiate oneself with others and deny one's feelings may be a
way of boosting one's spirits and mitigating the negative emotional effects of stress,
at least in the short run. Moreover, the temporary alleviation of negative emotion may
act as a reinforcer for the use of these aggressive and self-defeating types of humor,
even though the longer-term effects may be detrimental to well-being, explaining why
these potentially maladaptive uses of humor tend to be maintained in some individ-
uals as habitual coping styles. Thus, although aggressive and self-defeating humor
styles may mitigate the emotional effects of stress in the short term, they may be more
maladaptive in the longer run.
Interestingly, the use of affiliative humor did not appear to moderate the effects
of daily stress on negative moods. Instead, this type of humor showed a direct mood
effect, with greater uses of daily affiliative humor being associated with less negative
and more positive moods regardless of stress levels. It is worth noting that in this
study, Doris also used the traditional cross-sectional multiple regression paradigm to
examine stress-moderating effects of humor, using several trait measures of humor
including the HSQ, CHS, and SHRQ, major life events assessed retrospectively
over six months, and prevailing moods. The failure to find any significant stress-
moderating effects in these analyses further underscores the weaknesses of the cross-
sectional trait approach.
The process-oriented repeated measures approach, using multilevel analysis pro-
cedures such as HLM, appears to be a promising methodology for further research
on the role of humor in coping with stress. Future research could also examine the
relative benefits of particular styles of humor in coping with different types of stres-
sors. For example, stressors could be categorized on the basis of whether they involve
conflicts with close friends or acquaintances, problems at work, failures to achieve an
academic or work goal, and so on, as well as the participant's degree of perceived
control over the events. Different styles of humor may be more or less effective with
different types of stressors.
Researchers might also wish to consider other potentially relevant styles of humor
besides those assessed by the HSQ. Other adaptational outcomes should also be exam-
ined, including specific mood states, psychophysiological arousal levels, illness symp-
toms, and so forth. In addition, different sampling procedures could be used over
different time periods. For example, the availability of small handheld computers now
makes it possible to collect ongoing data relating to stressors, humor use, moods, and
even physiological arousal in "real time" over the course of the day. These methods
may enable researchers to examine the process of humor use in coping in a more fine-
grained manner.
INTERPERSONAL ASPECTS OF HUMOR IN MENTAL HEALTH
As we have seen throughout this book, humor typically occurs in the context of
social interaction. Until recently, however, as in other areas of the psychology of
HUMOR AND MENTAL HEALTH
humor, much of the research on humor and mental health has tended to ignore its
inherently social nature. Viewing humor as a form of interpersonal interaction allows
us to think about how it may contribute to social relationships, which in turn may
have an impact on the individual's psychological health.
There is a great deal of research indicating that social relationships have a pro-
found influence on one's level of happiness and general psychological well-being (for
a review, see Berscheid and Reis, 1998). Summarizing the research in this area, Harry
Reis (2001) stated that "there is widespread evidence that socially involved persons
are happier, healthier, and live longer than socially isolated persons do" (p. 58). For
example, married people, on average, tend to have better mental and physical health
than do unmarried people. Research has also shown that people with better social
skills, enabling them to form close and satisfying relationships, are less likely to expe-
rience depression, anxiety disorders, and other forms of psychological disturbance
(Segrin, 2000). Meaningful relationships with others are also important for the pro-
vision of social support, which can protect the individual from the adverse effects of
stress (Berscheid and Reis, 1998). On the other side of the coin, there is an abundance
of research showing that loneliness is related to unhappiness and a range of mental
and physical problems (Berscheid and Reis, 1998).
The importance of social connectedness for well-being likely has a biological
basis. Evolutionary psychologists view social relationships as one of the most impor-
tant factors responsible for the survival of the human species (D. M. Buss and Kenrick,
1998). The evolutionary significance of close relationships is also emphasized by
attachment theory (Bowlby, 1982), which suggests that the ability to form secure inter-
personal attachments originates in the relationship between infants and their care-
givers, and continues to play an important role in one's close relationships and in the
ability to regulate emotions throughout one's life.
In view of the social functions of humor discussed previously in this book, it
seems reasonable to propose that humor may play a role in the initiation and main-
tenance of satisfying and enduring social relationships, such as those with close
friends, marriage partners, and colleagues at work (Shiota et al., 2004). These rela-
tionships, in turn, can contribute in positive ways to the individual's level of mental
health. Besides enhancing partners' enjoyment of the relationship through playful
interactions, socially skilled uses of humor may aid in confronting and resolving
difficulties and facilitate the resolution of conflicts that inevitably occur in all
relationships.
In addition, the humor that is shared by relationship partners during times of life
stress may be an important way they help each other to cope. Thus, humorous inter-
actions between partners can be a way of regulating emotion, augmenting positive
enjoyment and reducing feelings of distress originating either within or outside the
relationship itself. On the other hand, maladaptive uses of humor, such as aggressive
teasing or self-defeating humor, may have detrimental effects on relationships. In
particular, individuals who use humor in these unhealthy ways may have difficulty
initiating and maintaining close relationships, leading to adverse consequences for
well-being.
INTERPERSONAL ASPECTS OF HUMOR IN MENTAL HEALTH
Humor as a Facilitator of Healthy Relationships
Some correlational studies have examined associations between trait measures of
humor and several variables relevant to personal relationships. For example, self-
report humor scales have been found to be positively correlated with measures of inti-
macy (Hampes, 1992, 1994), empathy (Hampes, 2001), social assertiveness (Bell et al.,
1986), and interpersonal trust (Hampes, 1999). As noted in Chapter 5, studies of
dating and married couples have shown that individuals who perceive their partner to
have a good sense of humor tend to be more satisfied with their relationship, as com-
pared to those who view their partner as less humorous (Rust and Goldstein, 1989;
Ziv and Gadish, 1989). Moreover, people who are happily married often attribute
their marital satisfaction, at least in part, to the humor they share with their spouse
(Lauer et al., 1990; Ziv, 1988a). Researchers observing styles of interaction between
married spouses during discussions of problems in their marriage have found that
spouses who are more satisfied with their marriage, as compared to those who are
unhappily married, show higher levels of humor and laughter and more reciprocated
laughter during these problem discussions (Carstensen et al., 1995; Gottman,
1994).
However, there is also some evidence that humor may play a negative as well as
a positive role in close relationships, particularly in men. Herbert Lefcourt and I found
that, among women, scores on the CHS were positively correlated with marital sat-
isfaction and positive engagement in a problem discussion between spouses, whereas
for men higher CHS scores were associated with lower marital satisfaction and greater
destructiveness (negative affect and verbal negativity) during the discussion (Lefcourt
and Martin, 1986). A study of newly married couples (described in Chapter 5) found
that greater humor expression by husbands during a problem discussion, when accom-
panied by higher levels of major stressful events in the couple's life, predicted a greater
likelihood that couples would be separated or divorced 1 8 months later (Cohan and
Bradbury, 1997). The authors suggested that husbands' use of humor during times of
stress may be a way for them to temporarily deflect problems and avoid the anxiety
associated with talking about them, but without actively confronting and resolving
them. Hence, humor expressed by the husband in the context of major life stress might
be associated with less distress in the short term but not with longer-term marital
stability.
The possibility of negative as well as positive effects of humor in relationships is
consistent with our discussion throughout this chapter. It is only quite recently,
however, that researchers have begun to address these issues in the context of rela-
tionships, attempting to identify negative as well as positive forms of humor. In a qual-
itative study of dating relationships, for example, Amy Bippus (2000b) drew a
distinction between humor that serves a bonding function and more negative types,
such as cruel, inappropriate, and overbearing humor that may be injurious to the
relationship. In addition, the recently developed Relational Humor Inventory,
which was designed for studying humor in close relationships, contains separate
scales for assessing positive, negative, and instrumental uses of humor by each
0 9 • HUMOR AND MENTAL HEALTH
partner (de Koning and Weiss, 2002). Preliminary data indicate that these different
scales are differentially associated with marriage partners' levels of relationship
satisfaction.
A few recent studies have also made use of the HSQ to examine associations
between these potentially healthy and unhealthy humor styles and variables having to
do with close relationships. For example, in our initial studies with the HSQ (R. A.
Martin et al., 2003), we found that individuals with higher scores on affiliative humor
and lower scores on self-defeating humor tended to report higher levels of intimacy
in their close relationships. In addition, self-enhancing humor was positively related
to the degree to which participants felt satisfied with the social support provided by
their friends, whereas self-defeating humor was negatively correlated with this
variable.
One of my graduate students, Gwen Dutrizac, and I found that higher affiliative
and self-enhancing humor scores were associated with lower levels of loneliness and
interpersonal anxiety, whereas higher self-defeating humor was related to higher levels
of these negative feelings (R. A. Martin and Dutrizac, 2004). Some studies have also
examined associations between the HSQ scales and measures relevant to attachment.
In a study of Lebanese university students, Shahe Kazarian and I found that partici-
pants with higher scores on the self-defeating humor scale were significantly more
likely to report anxious attachment in their relationships with close friends (Kazarian
and Martin, 2004). On the other hand, those with higher affiliative humor scores were
significantly less likely to report avoidant attachment styles.
Similarly, in their study of Belgian high school and university students, Saroglou
and Scariot (2002) reported a correlation between self-defeating humor and insecure
attachment in participants' relationships both with their friends and with their
mothers. Self-defeating humor was also associated with more fearful-avoidant and
anxious-ambivalent models of the self. Overall, these findings indicate that affiliative
and self-enhancing humor are associated with a variety of positive relationship indi-
cators, whereas self-defeating humor is particularly related to more negative experi-
ences of relationships in general.
Other studies have examined associations between humor styles on the HSQ and
participants' satisfaction with specific relationships. As part of her doctoral disserta-
tion, Patricia Doris (2004) asked university students who were in a dating relation-
ship to rate their own and their partners' humor styles using the HSQ, as well as their
satisfaction with the relationship. Self-ratings and partner ratings of affiliative and self-
enhancing humor were found to be associated with greater relationship satisfaction.
On the other hand, greater use of aggressive humor in oneself or one's partner was
associated with greater dissatisfaction with the dating relationship.
Similarly, in a study of humor in the initiation and maintenance of same-sex
friendships among university students, another one of my students, Jennie Ward
(2004), found that individuals who engaged in more affiliative and less aggressive
humor were rated by their friends as being more enjoyable to interact with, and as
fulfilling more positive friendship functions, such as companionship, intimacy, emo-
tional security, and affection. These studies suggest that the use of affiliative and (to
INTERPERSONAL ASPECTS OF HUMOR IN MENTAL HEALTH 30
a somewhat lesser extent) self-enhancing humor may be beneficial for relationship
satisfaction, whereas aggressive humor in either partner seems to be particularly
associated with relationship dissatisfaction.
These differential correlations between HSQ scales and satisfaction in close rela-
tionships suggest that healthy humor styles may be viewed as a type of social compe-
tence, whereas unhealthy humor styles may be related to social skills deficits. To test
this hypothesis, Jeremy Yip and I examined the HSQ, as well as the trait form of the
STCI, in relation to subscales of the Interpersonal Competence Questionnaire (ICQ)
(Buhrmester et al., 1988), a measure of the degree to which participants perceive
themselves to have various social skills needed to initiate and maintain satisfying rela-
tionships (Yip and Martin, in press). The results showed that higher scores on affil-
iative and self-enhancing humor and trait cheerfulness were associated with greater
reported abilities in both initiating relationships (e.g., "Finding and suggesting things
to do with new people whom you find interesting and attractive") and personal dis-
closure (e.g., "Confiding in a new friend and letting her or him see your softer, more
sensitive side").
In contrast, greater use of aggressive humor was related to lower reported abili-
ties both in providing emotional support (e.g., "Helping a close companion cope with
family or roommate problems") and conflict management (e.g., "When angry at a
companion, being able to accept that he or she has a valid point of view even if you
don't agree with that view"), whereas trait cheerfulness was positively associated with
both of these abilities. Finally, greater use of self-defeating humor was associated with
lower ability to engage in negative assertion (e.g., "Telling a companion you don't like
a certain way she or he has been treating you").
Similar patterns of correlations between the HSQ and the ICQ were also reported
by Nicholas Kuiper and his colleagues (2004). Overall, these findings provide support
for the idea that the positive forms of humor may be viewed as a type of social skill,
whereas aggressive and self-defeating humor may be considered to be social skills
deficits. These correlational findings need to be followed up with further research
exploring in more detail the appropriate and inappropriate ways humor is actually
used in each of these social skill domains.
The studies discussed so far have examined correlations between humor scales
and overall ratings of relationship satisfaction. This approach to measuring satisfac-
tion requires participants to make generalizations about a large number of interac-
tions with another person that have taken place over an extended period of time, and
to summarize this complex process in a single rating. To obtain more process-oriented
and proximal assessments of the quality of social interactions, two recent studies have
employed daily diary methods, obtaining repeated assessments of participants' posi-
tive and negative experiences with daily social interactions as they occurred over a
period of several weeks.
John Nezlek and Peter Derks (2001) had participants keep a daily record every
day for two weeks, recording all of their social interactions lasting more than 10
minutes, and rating each one for enjoyment, level of intimacy, and feelings of self-
confidence. Using HLM to analyze the data, the researchers found that participants
HUMOR AND MENTAL HEALTH
with higher scores on the Coping Humor Scale rated their daily social interactions as
being more satisfying and they also reported feeling greater self-confidence during
these interactions. However, coping humor was unrelated to the total number of
people interacted with each day or to the perceived intimacy of interactions. The
authors suggested that people who use humor to cope may be more enjoyable to be
with, providing others with more positive forms of support through their humor,
resulting in greater enjoyment and efficacy in interactions.
In the other study of this kind, Gwen Dutrizac and I conducted a similar daily
diary study of social interactions using the HSQ as our measure of humor (R. A.
Martin and Dutrizac, 2004). We had undergraduate participants keep a diary of daily
social interactions two days a week for three weeks. We focused only on interactions
with "close others," such as close friends, romantic partners, parents, and siblings. At
the end of each day, the participants indicated how many close others they interacted
with that day, the number of positive and negative verbal interactions and activities
they had with these people, and the frequency of both giving and receiving empathic
responses in these interactions.
HLM analyses revealed that higher affiliative humor on the HSQ was associated
with more frequent daily positive activities with close others (doing enjoyable things
together), while self-enhancing humor was correlated with more frequent positive
verbal interactions (engaging in enjoyable conversations). On the other hand, both
aggressive humor and self-defeating humor were related to more frequent negative
verbal communications and activities (e.g., arguments and criticism). In addition, self-
enhancing humor was associated with more giving and receiving of empathic
responses, whereas aggressive humor was related to less giving and receiving of
empathy. Like Nezlek and Derks (2001), we found no correlation between HSQ scales
and the overall frequency of interactions with others, suggesting that humor is related
to the quality but not the quantity of social interactions. Taken together, these two
studies provide further evidence that greater use of adaptive humor styles and less use
of aggressive and self-defeating humor styles are related to more satisfying day-to-
day interactions with others.
Another approach to investigating the role of different humor styles in relation-
ships is to observe directly individuals' humor while they are interacting with rela-
tionship partners. We have recently developed a reliable observational coding system
for rating the degree to which individuals engage in each of the four styles of humor
identified by the HSQ during social interactions. This method was used in a recent
study to rate the degree to which each member of pairs of heterosexual dating couples
used affiliative and aggressive humor during a 10-minute discussion of a problem in
their relationship (Martin, Campbell, and Ward, 2006). The results indicated that,
although both styles of humor were positively correlated with observer ratings of fun-
niness (demonstrating that both are indeed humorous), they had very different rela-
tionship outcomes. The more an individual was observed to use affiliative humor
during the discussion, the more his or her partner reported increased feelings of close-
ness, less emotional distress, greater perception that the problem had been resolved,
and greater overall satisfaction with the relationship. In contrast, the more individu-
als were observed to use aggressive humor, the less their partners felt the problem
INTERPERSONAL ASPECTS OF HUMOR IN MENTAL HEALTH 3(
had been resolved and the less satisfied they were with the relationship overall. Thus,
this study was able to show a direct link between these positive and negative styles of
humor and relationship partners' subsequent feelings and perceptions, demonstrating
that humor can have both positive and negative effects on close relationships, depend-
ing on whether it is used in affiliative or aggressive ways.
In summary, the research on social relationships using the HSQ, although as yet
quite limited, has provided general support for the view that these positive and neg-
ative styles of humor are differentially correlated with a number of variables having
to do with individuals' experiences of close relationships, which in turn are important
for mental health. Higher levels of both affiliative and self-enhancing humor tend to
be associated with greater skill in initiating relationships and self-disclosure of per-
sonal information, more positive interactions with close others, more satisfying
relationships with friends and dating partners, and lower levels of loneliness and inter-
personal anxiety. Affiliative humor is also related to lower levels of avoidant attach-
ment and greater intimacy in relationships, while self-enhancing humor is associated
with greater perceived social support and giving and receiving of empathy.
In contrast, greater use of aggressive humor is related to more frequent negative
interactions with others, less giving and receiving of empathy, reduced ability to
manage conflict and provide empathy in social relationships, and lower satisfaction
with dating relationships and friendships, both for oneself and one's partner. Thus,
although aggressive humor is less strongly related to overall emotional well-being
variables (as we saw previously), it seems to be particularly associated with social skills
deficits and maladaptive social interaction styles and therefore more unsatisfactory
relationships.
Finally, greater use of self-defeating humor tends to be associated with a reduced
ability to assert oneself in relationships, more negative interactions with close others,
higher levels of loneliness, interpersonal anxiety, and anxious and insecure attachment,
and lower perceptions of intimacy and social support. Overall, then, the neuroticism-
related characteristics of self-defeating humor that were seen with general well-being
variables seem to carry over into one's feelings about social relationships as well,
although, unlike aggressive humor, this negative style of humor does not seem to be
related to negative feelings and dissatisfaction in one's relationship partners.
It is important to note, however, that many of these studies were correlational,
using trait measures of humor, and were therefore unable to determine the direction
of causality between humor and relationship satisfaction. Additional research using
observational methods is needed to determine whether different styles of humor
have causal effects on relationship outcomes. Also, further research using event-
sampling procedures might be useful for studying humor use in everyday social
events as they occur in natural contexts (for a discussion of this methodology, see Reis,
2001).
Interpersonal Aspects of Coping Humor
While humor appears to play a role in facilitating healthy personal relationships,
it is also important to note that social relationships likely play a significant role in the
HUMOR AND MENTAL HEALTH
use of humor in coping with life stress, which I discussed earlier. As we have seen
throughout this book, humor typically occurs in the context of social interactions,
and this is also likely true of the use of humor in coping. As seen in the study of
POWs in Vietnam (Henman, 2001), individuals usually do not begin laughing or
cracking jokes about their problems when they are all by themselves. Instead, coping
humor typically takes the form of joking comments and other types of playful com-
munication among individuals during or shortly after the occurrence of stressful
events.
For example, by cracking jokes with one another during the course of a particu-
larly stressful work situation, coworkers may be able to alter their appraisals of the
situation and thereby minimize the amount of negative emotion that might otherwise
be elicited. Alternatively, while sitting together in a coffee shop at the end of a stress-
ful day, they might begin jesting and laughing about some of the day's events, enabling
them to relieve tension and manage residual emotions. Similarly, coping humor can
arise when one person is describing his or her experiences of a recent or ongoing
stressful situation to a close friend or romantic partner. Humor may be introduced
into the discussion either by the individual who experienced the stressor or by the lis-
tener who is providing emotional support. In either case, the humor may provide the
stressed individual an alternative way of looking at the stressor, alleviating feelings of
distress and enhancing positive emotions. Thus, as sociologist Linda Francis (1994)
pointed out, humor may be used to manage other people's emotions as well as one's
own.
To date, only a few studies have examined these interpersonal aspects of humor
as a coping mechanism. In one recent study, Sharon Manne and her colleagues (2004)
observed 10-minute interactions between women who were undergoing treatment for
breast cancer and their spouses. These dyads were instructed to discuss a cancer-
related issue identified by the patient as being a problem and about which she wanted
support from her partner. Each turn of speech during the discussion was coded for
various types of social interaction, including benign, nonsarcastic humor. Sequential
analyses showed that when husbands responded with humor to the cancer patients'
self-disclosures, the patients subsequently tended to report significantly lower levels
of distress about their cancer. These findings suggest that a husband's sensitive use of
humor in response to his wife sharing her worries and concerns about breast cancer
may lessen the threat of the cancer, helping her to gain perspective and reduce feel-
ings of distress.
Research by John Gottman and his colleagues (1998), which was discussed in
Chapter 5, also shows how humor may be a way of regulating emotions in one's mar-
riage partner. This study found that, when married couples were engaged in discus-
sions about problems in their marriage, the use of nonsarcastic humor by wives was
predictive of greater marital stability over the following six years, but only when the
wives' humor led to a reduction in their husbands' heart rate during the conversation.
This finding suggests that humor may be beneficial during times of marital stress when
it is used as a way of emotionally calming one's spouse and thereby enabling him to
remain engaged in problem-solving efforts.
CONCLUSION 3C
Amy Bippus (2000a) also investigated the outcomes experienced by individuals
when their friends use humor in attempting to comfort them during times of stress.
In this study, university students were asked to complete a questionnaire about a recent
time when they confided to a friend about an emotionally upsetting experience or
problem and the friend responded with humor. The results indicated that the effec-
tiveness of the friend's humorous response (i.e., the degree to which it resulted in
increased positive moods and feelings of empowerment, and decreased rumination
about the problem) depended on the quality (i.e., funniness and appropriate timing)
of the humor, its relevance to the problem, and the degree to which it seemed to be
given purposefully. In addition, humor responses appeared to be most effective when
they were given in the context of a relationship in which humor is a typical part of
the interactions between the partners, where both partners normally use humor in
coping with stress (as shown by high scores on the CHS), and when the humor was
presented in a way that conveyed feelings of concern and a lack of negative criticism
or disparagement, and provided an alternate perspective on the problem.
In summary, a limited amount of research has examined the interpersonal context
in which humor is used to cope with stress, and the processes of social interaction that
are involved. This is a potentially very fruitful topic for future investigation. For
example, future research could investigate the effects of humor when it is introduced
by the person who is experiencing stress as compared to when it is introduced by the
person providing social support, as well as the relative benefits of different styles and
topics of humor with different types of stressors.
CONCLUSION
As we have seen in previous chapters of this book, humor is a complex process
involving cognitive, emotional, and interpersonal aspects. All of these facets of humor
have implications for mental health and emotional well-being. When people joke with
one another about their problems or about a potentially threatening life situation,
they are able to change their perceptions of the situation, their emotional state, and
the nature of their relationships with each other. However, the research reviewed in
this chapter suggests that the link between humor and psychological health is more
complex than it might first seem.
Experimental laboratory research has provided a considerable amount of support
for the view of humor as an emotion-regulation mechanism. At least in the short term,
humor produces an increase in positive feelings of exhilaration and well-being, along
with perceptions of mastery and control, and a reduction in negative feelings such as
anxiety, depression, and anger. There is also research evidence that humor can miti-
gate the negative emotions, physiological arousal, and behavioral impairments that
often occur as a result of stressful life experiences.
While humor may be a useful mechanism for regulating emotions and coping
with stress in the short term, however, correlational research using trait measures of
sense of humor suggests that the longer-term implications for mental health may
HUMOR AND MENTAL HEALTH
depend on the way people use humor in their daily lives. Individuals who use humor
to cope in ways that are sensitive to their own and other people's broader psycholog-
ical needs are likely to experience enhanced feelings of self-esteem and emotional
well-being and more satisfying relationships with others in the longer term. On the
other hand, if humor is used to temporarily boost one's positive emotions and miti-
gate stress at the expense of others by means of sarcasm, teasing, or other types of
aggressive humor, it may lead in the longer term to interpersonal difficulties and con-
flicts, and generalized feelings of alienation from others. Similarly, if humor is used
at one's own psychological expense by ingratiating oneself with others, excessively dis-
paraging oneself, or avoiding dealing constructively with the underlying causes of
one's problems, it may produce temporary feelings of well-being, but at the cost of
less healthy functioning in the longer term.
Overall, then, it would appear that humor is inherently neither psychologically
healthy nor unhealthy. Just because someone is very funny and able to make others
laugh does not necessarily mean that he or she is particularly well-adjusted psycho-
logically. As suggested by earlier psychologists such as Maslow (1954) and Allport
(1961), the role of humor in mental health seems to have as much to do with the kinds
of humor an individual does not display as the kinds of humor he or she does express.
Another way of putting this is that a healthy sense of humor is an important com-
ponent of overall mental health. People who are psychologically well-adjusted, with
satisfying personal relationships, tend to use humor in ways that enhance their own
well-being and closeness to others. For example, they may engage in friendly joking
to communicate an optimistic outlook on a stressful situation, to encourage others
during times of distress, or to express underlying feelings of acceptance and affection
in the midst of an argument. However, less well-adjusted individuals who are aggres-
sive and hostile, or those with low self-esteem and a vulnerability to negative emo-
tionality, tend to use humor to communicate their aggression and cynicism, to
manipulate, demean, or control others, to ingratiate themselves, or to hide their true
feelings from others. Indeed, since no one is completely psychologically healthy or
completely unhealthy, most people likely use humor to some degree in all of these
ways at different times and in different contexts.
Throughout this chapter, I have noted several limitations of the existing research
as well as promising questions and methodologies for future research. A major limi-
tation of much of the research in this area is the use of correlational methodologies,
which do not allow researchers to determine the direction of causality between humor
and well-being. It is unclear from the existing research whether more healthy forms
of humor contribute to greater psychological health or whether different styles of
humor are merely a consequence of healthy and unhealthy psychological functioning.
Other methodological limitations include the use of cross-sectional designs, self-
report trait measures of sense of humor, retrospective assessments of stressors, and
general, traitlike evaluations of well-being and relationship satisfaction. All of these
preclude the possibility of studying the ongoing processes involved in the use of
humor in coping with stress and negotiating interpersonal interactions. These
approaches also tend to ignore the interpersonal nature and functions of humor.
CONCLUSION 3(
Rather than merely seeking to find simple correlations between sense of humor
scales and various aspects of mental health, or interactions between sense of humor
and life stress measures in predicting overall well-being, future research should
attempt to determine which types of humor in which social contexts are beneficial
and detrimental for which aspects of mental health. Some humor styles, such as
aggressive humor, may be beneficial for some aspects of mental health (e.g., short-
term regulation of one's own emotions) but deleterious for others (e.g., long-term
maintenance of close relationships). They may also be more beneficial for coping with
some types of stressors (e.g., being a prisoner of war) than others (e.g., dealing with
difficult patients in a psychiatric ward).
To address these kinds of questions, I have suggested that future research could
make use of daily experience methods or event-sampling procedures, in which the
actual use of different styles of humor during the course of the day is evaluated in
"real time" over a period of days or weeks (Reis and Gable, 2000). This approach
could be used to study humor as a coping mechanism by including repeated assess-
ments of stressful events and ongoing indicators of emotional and physical well-being.
The role of humor in social relationships could also be examined by including mea-
sures of various aspects of daily social interactions. Another potentially useful
approach for further research is the use of observational methods to study the
processes of humor in interpersonal interactions. For example, the social functions of
humor, as well as its effect on coping with stress, could be examined during conver-
sations between dyads (friends, married partners, or even strangers) while they are
discussing a stressful situation that has recently been experienced by one or both of
them.
Finally, there has been little research examining the question of whether individ-
uals can improve their sense of humor and learn to use it in more healthy and less
unhealthy ways. To address this question, intervention studies are needed, making use
of role-playing procedures, creativity exercises, and other techniques over multiple
sessions to train individuals in effective humor skills. Outcome measures could be used
to examine the effectiveness of such humor-training sessions, relative to other non-
humorous interventions, in improving humor usage and enhancing aspects of psy-
chological well-being. This type of research is necessary before we can begin to
advocate the use of humor and laughter to promote mental health.
CHAPTER 10
Humor and Physical Health
TH<
ie idea that humor and laughter are good
for one's health has become very popular in recent years, among the general public
as well as many health care practitioners. This is actually not a new idea; the health
benefits of laughter have been touted for centuries. The medicinal value of mirth and
cheerfulness, as well as the health-impairing effects of negative emotions, were
affirmed thousands of years ago in a biblical proverb which states that "a merry heart
does good like a medicine, but a broken spirit dries the bones" (Proverbs 17:22).
Since the time of Aristotle, a number of physicians and philosophers have sug-
gested that laughter has important health benefits, such as improving blood circula-
tion, aiding digestion, restoring energy, counteracting depression, and enhancing the
functioning of various organs of the body (for reviews, see Goldstein, 1982; Moody,
1978). This idea has become increasingly popular in recent years, as modern medical
discoveries like endorphins, cytokines, natural killer cells, and immunoglobulins have
been added to the list of bodily substances that are thought to be beneficially affected
by humor and laughter.
Within psychology, research on the potential benefits of humor on physical health
falls within the domain of health psychology, which is concerned with the way behav-
ior, cognitions, and emotions can influence health, wellness, and illness. Health psy-
chologists conduct research on such topics as the physiological effects of psychosocial
stress; the influence of cognitive appraisals, coping, social support, and other psycho-
logical factors on stress; the effects of emotions on immunity; psychological aspects
309
10 • HUMOR AND PHYSICAL HEALTH
of pain and disease; the promotion and maintenance of health; and the relationship
between patients and health care providers.
Rejecting the traditional biomedical model of health and illness as overly sim-
plistic, health psychologists espouse a biopsychosocial model, which views health as
determined by psychological, social, and cultural factors, in addition to biological
causes (Engel, 1977). Clinical health psychology is a professional specialty area within
clinical psychology that seeks to apply the research findings of health psychology and
related disciplines to the development of treatment interventions for helping people
to cope effectively with stress, modify their behavior in more health-enhancing ways,
manage pain, cope with chronic illness, and so forth.
Over the past two decades, about 50 published articles have reported empirical
investigations that bear on the relationship between humor and physical health. In
addition to psychologists, these studies have been conducted by researchers from
medicine, nursing, and other fields. In this chapter, I will begin by discussing
recent developments in the popularization of claims for health benefits of humor and
laughter. I will then explore several theoretical mechanisms by which humor and
laughter could potentially influence health. In the remainder of the chapter, I will
provide an overview of research on the effects of humor on various aspects of health,
including immunity, pain tolerance, blood pressure, illness symptoms, and longevity,
examining the current state of the evidence and discussing some of the questions that
remain to be answered (for a more detailed review of this research, see R. A. Martin,
2001).
POPULAR BELIEFS ABOUT HUMOR AND HEALTH
The current popularity of ideas about medicinal benefits of humor and laughter
can be traced in large part to the publication by Norman Cousins of an article in the
New England Journal of Medicine entitled "Anatomy of an illness" (Cousins, 1976),
which was later expanded into a best-selling book by the same name (Cousins, 1979).
Cousins, a well-known American magazine editor, recounted in these writings how
he had been diagnosed in the early 1960s with a very painful, chronic, and debilitat-
ing rheumatoid disease called ankylosing spondylitis, and was told by his doctor that he
had only a l-in-500 chance of recovering fully. Aware that medical science had little
to offer in the way of cure except medication to ease the pain of the disease, Cousins
searched through the medical literature and learned about recent research suggesting
health-impairing effects of stress-related negative emotions, as well as potential ben-
efits of vitamin C. With the cooperation of his physician, he decided to check himself
out of the hospital and undergo a self-prescribed treatment plan involving frequent
daily laughter, along with massive doses of vitamin C. To induce positive feelings
which, he hoped, would counteract any adverse effects of negative emotions, he
laughed as often as possible by watching old episodes of the television program Candid
Camera, Marx Brothers movies, and other comedy films, and reading joke books. The
story of his eventual recovery from the disease is now well-known.
POPULAR BELIEFS ABOUT HUMOR AND HEALTH
During the course of this treatment, Cousins observed that 10 minutes of hearty
laughter had a reliable analgesic effect, providing two hours of pain-free sleep. In addi-
tion, he reported that episodes of laughter reliably resulted in reductions in the
sedimentation rate, the rate at which red blood cells descend in a test tube, which is
a measure of inflammation. These observations led to the hypothesis that laughter
reduces pain, perhaps by stimulating the production of endorphins, the morphinelike
substances produced by the brain, as well as the suggestion that laughter enhances
immune system functioning.
Although the story of Norman Cousins is widely cited as evidence for the health
benefits of laughter, it is important to note that such anecdotal cases do not provide
scientific evidence, but need to be followed up with controlled experiments. It is
unknown whether his recovery was due to the laughter, the Vitamin C, particular
personality traits such as the will to live, or to some totally unrelated factor, or whether
the disease may even have been misdiagnosed in the first place. Indeed, in a later
article, Cousins (1985) himself downplayed the role of laughter in his recovery,
emphasizing the importance of positive emotions in general as a context for the appli-
cation of traditional medical treatments.
The case of Norman Cousins appeared at a time when many North Americans
were becoming dissatisfied with traditional Western medicine, and alternative
approaches to medicine were growing in popularity. The idea that laughter could have
curative properties fit well with this Zeitgeist. Over the years since then, numerous
popular magazine articles have reported claims of scientific research purportedly
showing evidence of beneficial effects of humor and laughter on various aspects of
health, further bolstering these beliefs in the public mind. As one example, an article
in a recent issue of Reader's Digest (Rackl, 2003) claimed that scientists have demon-
strated that humor and laughter can alleviate allergy symptoms, increase pain toler-
ance, strengthen the immune system, reduce the risk of stroke and heart disease, and
even help diabetics control their blood sugar levels.
Stimulated by these ideas, a burgeoning "humor and health movement" has devel-
oped, made up of nurses, physicians, social workers, psychotherapists, educators,
clowns, and comedians, who enthusiastically promote the therapeutic benefits of
humor through conferences, seminars, workshops, books, videotapes, and Internet
websites. As noted in Chapter 1, the Association for Applied and Therapeutic Humor
(AATH) is a professional society of individuals whose members are interested in the
application of humor and laughter in medicine, social work, psychotherapy, educa-
tion, and so on (available at www.aath.org).
In addition, the "laughter club movement," which was started in India in 1995 by
a physician named Madan Kataria, has witnessed remarkable growth in the past
decade, forming chapters throughout the world. Believing that even nonhumorous
laughter is beneficial for physical, mental, interpersonal, and spiritual health, adher-
ents of this movement meet regularly to engage in group laughter as a form of yogic
exercise. According to Kataria (2002), the mission of the movement is nothing less
than to bring about "world peace through laughter!" The humor and health move-
ment also received a boost in 1998 with the release of the movie Patch Adams,
HUMOR AND PHYSICAL HEALTH
starring Robin Williams, which depicted the true story of an unconventional physi-
cian who augmented his medical interventions by making his patients laugh in
response to his comic interactions with them (described also in P. Adams and Mylan-
der, 1998). Laughter rooms, comedy carts, and "therapeutic clowns" have now become
familiar sights in many hospitals.
The remarkable range of bodily functions that are said to be helped by laughter
and humor, according to contemporary claims, reminds one of the advertised bene-
fits of patent medicines a century ago. Laughter is said to provide exercise for the
muscles and heart, produce muscle relaxation, improve blood circulation, reduce the
production of stress-related hormones such as catecholamines and cortisol, enhance
a wide range of immune system variables, reduce pain by stimulating the production
of endorphins, reduce blood pressure, enhance respiration, regulate blood sugar levels,
and remove carbon dioxide and water vapor from the lungs (W. F. Fry, 1994; McGhee,
1999). As such, laughter has been said to provide some degree of protection against
cancer, heart attacks, stroke, asthma, diabetes, pneumonia, bronchitis, hypertension,
migraine headaches, arthritis pain, ulcers, and all sorts of infectious diseases ranging
from the common cold to AIDS (W. F. Fry, 1994; McGhee, 1999). With such a range
of effects, it would seem that laughter threatens to put the major pharmaceutical com-
panies out of business!
Many of the claimed health benefits of laughter are unproven and appear quite
fanciful. For example, although it is often claimed that laughter provides the same
health benefits as jogging and other forms of physical exercise, there is no published
research evaluating this claim. It seems likely that one would need to laugh for quite
a long time in order to consume a significant number of calories; people are likely
better off taking up a more vigorous form of exercise if they wish to lose weight or
enhance their cardiovascular fitness.
Other claims are essentially unfalsifiable and therefore of little scientific merit.
An example is the suggestion that laughter reduces the risk of bronchial infections
and pneumonia by expelling moist residual air from the lungs, resulting in a reduc-
tion of excess moisture that would otherwise encourage pulmonary bacterial growth
(W. F. Fry, 1994). The difficulty with this claim (apart from the fact that there is no
empirical evidence that laughter actually reduces moisture levels in the lungs) is that
one could make an equally convincing argument for health-enhancing benefits of
laughter regardless of the direction of its physiological effects. If it turned out that
laughter somehow increased, rather than decreased, the pulmonary moisture level,
one could come up with an equally plausible-sounding argument that it is beneficial
because it keeps the lungs from drying out and shriveling up. Thus, regardless of what
effect laughter may have on a particular system of the body, a "just-so story" can be
concocted to explain why this effect is beneficial. It is interesting to note that one cur-
mudgeonly nineteenth-century author used similar kinds of arguments in the oppo-
site way to support his contention that laughter is actually harmful to physical health
(Vasey, 1877)!
Part of the attraction of humor and laughter as a form of alternative medicine is
that it is inherently enjoyable and, unlike many other health-promoting activities, it
HOW MIGHT HUMOR AFFECT HEALTH?
does not require giving up pleasurable habits like smoking and overeating. The fact
that it is free, in contrast to the high costs of many traditional and nontraditional
treatments, makes it even more attractive. Given the popularity of these views, one
runs the risk of being labeled as a killjoy if one questions whether humor and laugh-
ter actually produce the medical benefits that are claimed. However, a scientific
approach requires that we examine the evidence.
As we saw in the previous chapter, there is good reason to believe that laughter
can improve one's mood and that a healthy sense of humor can be beneficial for coping
with stress and enriching one's relationships with others, enhancing one's quality of
life. What is the evidence, however, that humor and laughter can also have a benefi-
cial impact on aspects of physical health, such as strengthening the immune system,
reducing pain, or prolonging the duration of one's life? As we will see, the existing
evidence is rather weaker and more inconsistent than the media reports would lead
us to believe.
HOW MIGHT HUMOR AFFECT HEALTH?
The idea of health benefits of humor is more complex than it might first appear.
For one thing, physical health is not a unitary concept. There are many different
aspects and components of health, and they are not all correlated. Factors that are
beneficial for some aspects of health might even be harmful for others. In addition,
as previous chapters of this book have shown, humor is a complex phenomenon,
involving cognitive, emotional, behavioral, physiological, and social aspects. Differ-
ent components of humor could conceivably affect different aspects of health in a
variety of ways (R. A. Martin, 2001).
If humor is beneficial for health, then presumably people with a greater sense of
humor enjoy better physical health and live longer lives. But what aspects or compo-
nents of "sense of humor" are likely to be health-enhancing? As noted in Chapter 7,
there are numerous ways of conceptualizing this personality trait. Different dimen-
sions of sense of humor might be related to health in different ways, and some may
be more relevant to health than others. Indeed, some aspects or styles of humor (e.g.,
aggressive or self-defeating humor) might actually be detrimental to health in some
ways.
Thus, it is important to consider the possible mechanisms by which humor could
influence health. Systematic research is needed to investigate each of these potential
mechanisms and to determine which components and aspects of humor are impor-
tant and which are not. Only when we have gained such knowledge can we begin to
design effective therapeutic interventions based on these findings. In general, five
potential mechanisms may be considered, each involving different aspects of humor
(and hence different ways of conceptualizing what it means to have a "healthy" sense
of humor), and each suggesting different implications for health care interventions.
First, health benefits might result from some of the physiological effects of
laughter itself, as suggested by many people over the years. As we saw in Chapter 6,
HUMOR AND PHYSICAL HEALTH
laughter is a facial and vocal expression of the emotion of mirth that involves respi-
ratory, muscular, and vocal activity. As mentioned earlier, psychiatrist William Fry
(1994) suggested that the muscular activity occurring in many parts of the body during
vigorous laughter may be viewed as a form of aerobic exercise, burning calories and
providing many of the well-known health benefits of physical exertion. He also sug-
gested that laughter enhances pulmonary function, enabling the lungs to expel stale
residual air containing built-up carbon dioxide and water vapor, thereby potentially
reducing the risk of bronchial bacterial infections.
These ideas are quite speculative, but if they are correct, then it would be neces-
sary for people to actually laugh in order to gain such benefits; simply being amused
or feeling cheerful without laughing would not be enough. Indeed, laughter might
even be expected to provide these effects without humor (e.g., feigned or forced laugh-
ter), as advocated by leaders of the laughter club movement (Kataria, 2002). The
object of one's laughter would also seem to be unimportant: hostile laughter directed
at other people should be just as effective as more friendly forms. From this per-
spective, the person with a "healthy" sense of humor is the one who laughs uproari-
ously as often as possible, and therapeutic humor interventions should be aimed
simply at encouraging people to engage in frequent and intense laughter.
A second potential mechanism whereby humor could conceivably influence health
is through the physiological effects of the positive emotion (i.e., mirth) that accompa-
nies humor and is expressed by laughter. As noted in Chapter 6, this pleasurable
emotion is mediated by activity in the limbic system and other parts of the brain and,
like other emotions, produces changes in the autonomic nervous system and
endocrine system that extend throughout the body. Some of these physiological effects
of mirth might have beneficial health effects. For example, the increased heart rate
resulting from sympathetic arousal might provide a sort of cardiac workout (W. F. Fry,
1994).
We also saw in chapter 6 that there is evidence from animal studies suggesting
the production of endorphins and other opiates during play, which might also occur
with humor-related mirth, resulting in a greater tolerance for pain (Panksepp, 1998).
Researchers are just beginning to explore the various neuropeptides that are released
by the brain during states of positive as well as negative emotions (Panksepp, 1993),
and some of these mirth-related biochemicals might conceivably have beneficial
effects on various components of the immune system as well as other bodily functions
(W F. Fry, 1994).
It should be noted that, although popular writings on humor and health often
attribute these sorts of physiological changes to vigorous laughter, they are more
properly viewed as effects of the emotion that is communicated by laughter, as noted
in Chapter 6. Thus, actually laughing out loud may not be necessary to achieve these
effects: humor-induced feelings of mirth may be all that is needed. Nonhumorous
exercises for inducing laughter, such as those used in laughter clubs, might not be
very effective unless they also elicit the positive emotion of mirth along with the
laughter.
HOW MIGHT HUMOR AFFECT HEALTH?
In addition, it is worth noting that these potential benefits might not be specific
to mirth, but might also result from other positive emotions that are not specifically
humor-related, such as joy, happiness, and love, which might share many of the same
brain circuits (Panksepp and Burgdorf, 2003). Thus, positive emotions, regardless of
how they are generated, may have analgesic (Bruehl, Carlson, and McCubbin, 1993)
or immunoenhancing effects (Stone et al., 1987) or may have an "undoing" effect
on the potentially harmful cardiovascular consequences of negative emotions
(Fredrickson and Levenson, 1998). If these hypotheses are correct, then they give
humor and laughter a less unique role in health enhancement, as they are only one
means of increasing positive emotions. In this view, a "healthy" sense of humor would
involve a generally cheerful temperament characterized by happiness, joy, optimism,
and a playful approach to life (Ruch and Carrell, 1998), and therapeutic interventions
should aim at increasing people's positive emotions by a variety of means in addition
to humor. The promotion of laughter would be less important than seeking to
enhance positive emotions.
Third, humor might benefit health through cognitive mechanisms, by moderating
the adverse effects of psychosocial stress on health. A large body of research has
demonstrated that stressful life experiences can have adverse effects on various aspects
of health, such as suppression of the immune system (Uchino, Kiecolt-Glaser, and
Glaser, 2000) and increased risk of heart disease (Esler, 1998), through the chronic
production of various stress-related hormones such as catecholamines and cortisol.
As noted in Chapter 9, humor may be an effective way of coping with stress, reduc-
ing its adverse effects on physical health as well as moods. A humorous outlook on
life and the ability to see the funny side of one's problems may enable individuals to
cope more effectively with stress by allowing them to gain perspective and distance
themselves from stressful situations, enhancing their feelings of mastery and well-
being in the face of adversity (R. A. Martin et al., 1993; R. A. Martin and Lefcourt,
1983). As a consequence, these individuals may experience fewer of the adverse effects
of stress on their physical health.
In this hypothesized stress-moderator mechanism, the cognitive-perceptual
aspects of humor would be more important than laughter, and the ability to maintain
a humorous outlook during times of stress and adversity would be particularly impor-
tant; humor during nonstressful times would be less relevant to health. This view also
introduces the possibility that certain types of humor (e.g., perspective-taking humor)
may be more adaptive and health-enhancing than others (e.g., excessively self-
disparaging humor). If this view is correct, therapeutic humor interventions should
be viewed as a component of stress management training, focusing on teaching
individuals ways of using humor to cope with stress in their daily lives.
Fourth, humor might indirectly benefit health through an interpersonal mecha-
nism by increasing one's level of social support. As noted in Chapter 9, individuals
who are able to use humor effectively to reduce interpersonal conflicts and tensions
and to enhance positive feelings in others may consequently enjoy more numerous
and satisfying social relationships. As a result, they may enjoy the well-established
HUMOR AND PHYSICAL HEALTH
stress-buffering and health-enhancing effects of close relationships (House, Landis,
and Umberson, 1988; Kiecolt-Glaser and Newton, 2001). This hypothesized mech-
anism focuses on interpersonal aspects of humor and the social competence with
which individuals express humor in their relationships, rather than the frequency with
which they engage in laughter. The target and nature of the humor becomes even
more important in this model. Here, a "healthy" sense of humor would involve the
use of humor to enhance relationships with others in an affiliative and nonhostile
manner. Therapeutic humor interventions would be seen as an adjunct to social
skills training, teaching individuals to develop a socially facilitative sense of
humor, along with other skills for developing, maintaining, and enhancing intimate
relationships.
Finally, a fifth (behavioral} mechanism by which humor might hypothetically
have a beneficial effect on health is by promoting a healthy lifestyle. For example, one
could speculate that people with a better sense of humor, because of their presumably
higher self-esteem and more optimistic outlook on life, are more likely to engage in
healthy behaviors such as obtaining regular physical exercise, eating healthy foods,
maintaining an appropriate body weight, and refraining from smoking and excess
alcohol consumption. However, research evidence bearing on this hypothesis,
although rather limited, actually suggests that, if anything, the effects are the
opposite: high-humor individuals seem to be more likely to engage in unhealthy
lifestyles.
For example, in a longitudinal study of humor and physical health among Finnish
police officers, Paavo Kerkkanen, Nicholas Kuiper, and I (2004) found that higher
scores on some sense of humor scales (but not others) were associated with greater
obesity, increased smoking, and factors associated with greater risk of cardiovascular
disease. Similarly, the Terman life-cycle study, which followed a large sample of highly
gifted individuals over many decades (to be discussed in more detail later in this
chapter), found that those who were rated as being more cheerful as children (i.e.,
having a higher sense of humor and greater optimism) were more likely to smoke and
consume alcohol as adults (L. R. Martin et al., 2002).
These apparent associations between humor and unhealthy lifestyle behaviors
may be due in part to the more extraverted personality traits of high-humor individ-
uals (Ruch, 1994). Past research has shown that extraverted individuals, in compari-
son with introverts, are more likely to drink alcohol (M. Cook et al., 1998), to smoke
(Patton, Barnes, and Murray, 1993), and to be obese (Haellstroem and Noppa, 1981).
Although such findings of an association between sense of humor and unhealthy
lifestyle behaviors need to be studied in more detail before we make too much of
them, they do suggest that humor may actually have some deleterious as well as poten-
tially beneficial health consequences.
In summary, there are several different theoretical models of the mechanisms
by which humor might potentially influence health. Each model suggests different
approaches to the application of humor in health care and health promotion. In order
to ensure that treatments are likely to be effective, systematic research should be
conducted to test each of these models before developing such interventions.
HUMOR AND IMMUNITY
HUMOR AND IMMUNITY
The immune system is an exceedingly complex and dynamic network of many
types of white blood cells (lymphocytes) and biochemical molecules distributed
throughout all parts of the body, whose function is to discriminate between "self" and
"nonself" antigens and protect the body from foreign invaders (Sanders, Iciek, and
Kasprowicz, 2000; Uchino et al., 2000). Given the large number of components and
the dynamic nature of the immune system, there is no single way of measuring overall
immunocompetence. In recent years, research in the field of psychoneuroimmunol-
ogy has demonstrated that there are intimate connections between the immune system
and the brain, which communicate with one another by means of a variety of mole-
cules such as neurotransmitters, hormones, neuropeptides, and cytokines. Psycholog-
ical factors can therefore influence immunity, just as immunological factors can affect
psychological functioning.
There is now considerable evidence that different emotional states have an in-
fluence on immunity through these brain-immune system communication channels
(for a review, see Booth and Pennebaker, 2000). In particular, some research indicates
that negative emotions, such as anger, depression, and fear, can adversely affect various
components of immunity, and that these effects can result in poorer health. However,
the effects vary for different aspects of immunity, with some immunity components
also showing improvement in response to negative moods. The effects also seem to
depend in part on the psychosocial context. It is therefore incorrect to assume that
there is a one-to-one correspondence between specific emotions and specific immune
system changes (Booth and Pennebaker, 2000).
Overall, potential effects of positive emotions on immunity are less well-
documented than the effects of negative emotions, although this may be due to less
attention having been given to positive emotions by researchers. Nonetheless, several
studies have investigated hypothesized effects on immunity of the positive emotion
associated with humor.
Experimental Investigations
To study effects of humor on immunity, researchers have conducted experiments
in which they obtained blood or saliva samples before and after participants watched
humorous videotapes in the laboratory, and then conducted assays on these samples
to determine the levels of various components of immunity, such as the secretion rates
of various immunoglobulins and the ability of different types of lymphocytes to detect
and combat antigens. A significant prevideotape to postvideotape change in these
immunological variables suggests possible effects of humor on immunity.
Of course, these experiments also require appropriate control conditions, in
which participants also watch nonhumorous (but equally interesting) videotapes, to
ensure that any observed effects are due to humor and not some other factor, such as
simply watching an interesting and enjoyable videotape, or the increases and decreases
in biological variables (diurnal cycles) that occur naturally over the course of the day.
HUMOR AND PHYSICAL HEALTH
To determine whether any observed effects are specific to humor, or are also found
with other positive or negative emotions, it is also desirable to include control con-
ditions in which other emotions are elicited.
In addition, to explore possible mechanisms of any observed humor-related
changes in immunity, researchers should examine the correlations between these
immunological changes and such variables as the frequency of laughter and ratings of
funniness, enjoyment, and moods obtained from the participants in the comedy con-
dition. The relative strengths of these correlations can provide an indication of
whether the effects are due to laughter in particular, or to the positive emotions asso-
ciated with humor, or to other factors. For example, if changes in immunity are found
to be significantly related to the duration or intensity of laughter, even after control-
ling for mood changes, this would suggest that laughter influences immunity even
beyond the effects of mirth. Unfortunately, most of the research to date has not
included the control conditions and observational measures needed to explore these
sorts of questions.
The majority of the immunity-related experiments that have been conducted so
far have examined only secretory immunoglobulin A (S-IgA), a component of the
immune system found in saliva that is involved in the body's defense against upper
respiratory infections. A number of investigations outside of the humor field have
shown phasic (short-term) increases in levels of S-IgA in saliva while subjects are
performing emotionally stressful, exciting, or challenging tasks in the laboratory
(Harrison et al., 2000), whereas more tonic (longer-lasting) decreases in S-IgA levels
have been found during times of life stress, such as when students are writing major
examinations (Deinzer et al., 2000).
In the first published study of humor and immunity, Kathleen Dillon and her
colleagues had nine college students individually watch a 30-minute comedy video-
tape (Richard Pryor performing stand-up comedy) and an emotionally neutral control
videotape in counterbalanced order (Dillon, Minchoff, and Baker, 1985). The data
analyses revealed a significant increase in the levels of S-IgA in saliva while the par-
ticipants watched the comedy film, whereas no change in S-IgA was observed during
the control film. Thus, humor appeared to produce at least a short-term improve-
ment in this component of immunity.
These findings inspired Herbert Lefcourt and his colleagues to conduct a series
of three experiments with larger sample sizes examining effects of exposure to comedy
on S-IgA (Lefcourt, Davidson-Katz, and Kueneman, 1990). In each study, participants
either listened to a comedy audiotape or watched a comedy videotape in small groups.
All three studies showed significant increases in S-IgA following exposure to comedy
relative to a baseline measure, providing further support for the findings of Dillon
and her colleagues (1985). However, these studies had some methodological weak-
nesses that made the results somewhat inconclusive. Many of the baseline assessments
of S-IgA were taken on different days, at different times of day, and in different loca-
tions than the postcomedy measures. In addition, these studies did not have adequate
control groups. It is therefore difficult to know whether the observed effects were
HUMOR AND IMMUNITY 31
specifically due to humor or whether they may have resulted from some other uncon-
trolled variables.
Better controls were used by David McClelland and Adam Cheriff (1997) in a
series of three studies in which participants were shown either a comedy or a docu-
mentary control videotape. No consistent prevideotape to postvideotape increases in
S-IgA were observed in the documentary videotape control conditions, whereas, in
the comedy conditions, more subjects showed an increase than a decrease in S-IgA.
Similar findings of humor-related increases in S-IgA have been obtained in three other
experiments (Labott et al., 1990; Lambert and Lambert, 1995; Perera et al., 1998).
However, two additional well-controlled experiments failed to replicate these findings
(Harrison et al., 2000; Njus, Nitschke, and Bryant, 1996), casting some doubt on their
reliability.
Besides the research on S-IgA, a few other laboratory experiments have examined
effects of exposure to comedy videotapes on a variety of immunological variables
assayed in blood samples. One of these, conducted by Lee Berk and his colleagues
(1989), received a great deal of attention in the media and has frequently been cited
in the humor and health literature. The participants in this study were 10 male medical
personnel, five of whom were assigned as a single group to watch a 60-minute comedy
video, whereas the other five sat quietly in a room together for an hour. Blood samples
were collected via intravenous catheters in the forearm at several intervals before,
during, and after the stimulus conditions, and assays were conducted for 19 immu-
nity and endocrine-related variables. Among the participants in the comedy video
group, the results showed significant increases from baseline in six immunity-related
variables (T cell helper/suppressor ratio, blastogenesis, IgG, IgM, natural killer cell
activity, and complement C3), suggesting immunoenhancing effects of humor.
However, since comparisons were not reported for the control condition, we can only
assume that similar changes did not also occur in those participants who did not watch
the humorous video.
Although some promising results were obtained in this study, there are a number
of methodological limitations that weaken our ability to draw firm conclusions. These
include a small sample size, an inadequate control condition, and a very large number
of statistical analyses, increasing the risk that the observed effects could simply have
been due to chance. In addition, most of the immunity-related results of this study
were never published in a peer-reviewed journal article, but were only reported in
conference papers, leaving many details of the methodology and analyses unknown
and therefore difficult to evaluate. Since the researchers did not measure the amount
of laughter or moods of the participants, they were unable to examine the degree to
which these factors mediated the effects. Overall, although this study showed some
intriguing findings, it does not provide the sort of conclusive scientific evidence of
immunoenhancing effects of laughter that have often been claimed for it.
Some additional experiments have also reported humor-related changes in various
components of immunity measured in blood samples (L. S. Berk et al., 2001; Itami,
Nobori, and Texhima, 1994; Kamei, Kumano, and Masumura, 1997; Mittwoch-Jaffe
HUMOR AND PHYSICAL HEALTH
et al., 1995; Yoshino, Fujimori, and Kohda, 1996). However, these studies also tended
to have only small numbers of participants and inadequate controls. In addition, the
results were rather inconsistent across the studies, with some showing immuno-
enhancing effects, others showing immunosuppressive effects, and still others showing
no significant effects with particular components of immunity. For example, whereas
Berk and colleagues (2001) reported increases in T-cell helper-suppressor ratio and
Natural Killer (NK) cell activity with exposure to comedy, Kamei and associates
(1997) did not replicate the T-cell ratio finding and found a decrease in NK cell activ-
ity. Overall, then, although the existing experimental laboratory research suggests that
exposure to comedy may have some short-term effects on some components of immu-
nity, more systematic and well-controlled research is needed before any firm conclu-
sions can be drawn concerning the exact nature of these effects.
There appears to be a particular interest in the potential health benefits of humor
among researchers in Japan, as witnessed by some of the studies mentioned above, as
well as several other more recent investigations that were conducted in that country.
Hajime Kimata recently reported research suggesting that humor can reduce allergic
reactions in individuals with allergies. In one study, after watching a humorous movie,
individuals with dermatitis showed less severe allergic reactions in response to skin
prick tests involving allergens such as house dust mites and cat dander, as compared
to the more severe reactions that occurred after they watched a nonhumorous docu-
mentary film (Kimata, 2001).
In another study comprising two separate experiments, patients with allergy-
related bronchial asthma showed reduced asthmatic reactions to allergens after they
had watched a comedy videotape, whereas no such effect was found with a nonhu-
morous control film (Kimata, 2004b). This same researcher also found that watching
a comedy film, but not a nonhumorous control film, resulted in a reduction in certain
allergy-related immunoglobulins in the tears of patients with allergic conjunctivitis,
an inflammatory eye condition (Kimata, 2004a). Taken together, these experiments
suggest that, rather than enhancing immunity, humor may suppress the excessive
immune responses that occur in certain allergic reactions by reducing the secretion
of immunoglobulins such as IgE and IgG.
In another Japanese study, after watching a comedy videotape, healthy partici-
pants were found to have a significant increase in free radical scavenging capacity
(FRSC), as indicated by increased levels (relative to baseline) of certain molecules in
their saliva that are involved in the elimination of free radicals from the mouth (Atsumi
et al., 2004). Free radicals are molecules that have been implicated in inflammation,
aging, and the development of some types of cancer. Although this study was limited
by the fact that it did not include a nonhumorous control condition, the amount of
increase in FRSC was found to be significantly correlated with participants'
ratings of their enjoyment of the videotape, suggesting a possible mediating role of
mirth.
An additional Japanese study, although unrelated to immunity, is worth men-
tioning here. In this investigation, individuals with type 2 diabetes were found to have
significantly lower blood glucose levels after eating a meal on a day when they had
HUMOR AND IMMUNITY 32
previously attended a comedy show, as compared to a day when they had attended a
nonhumorous, monotonous lecture (Hayashi et al., 2003). The authors theorized that
neuroendocrine effects of mirthful emotion may have suppressed the elevation of
glucose, suggesting that engaging in humor might be beneficial to people with dia-
betes to help control their glucose levels. These recent Japanese investigations suggest
a number of intriguing possibilities of beneficial immunological and endocrine effects
of humor-related positive emotion and laughter. However, the evidence is still far
from conclusive. Further research is needed to replicate and explore the mechanisms
of these effects in greater detail, using larger samples and more rigorous methodolo-
gies, before we can be confident of their reliability and clinical utility.
Correlational Studies
A limitation of the sorts of experiments described in the previous section is that
they are not able to determine whether there are any long-term health benefits of
humor and laughter on immunity. Even though there may be statistically significant
short-term changes in immunity-related variables with exposure to comedy in the lab-
oratory, it is important to determine whether such changes have any longer-term clin-
ical significance. If humor has clinically meaningful beneficial effects on the immune
system, then it should be possible to demonstrate that individuals who engage in
laughter and humor more frequently (i.e., those with a greater sense of humor) have
generally greater immunocompetence and are less likely to suffer from infectious ill-
nesses over time. In other words, there should be a positive correlation between sense
of humor and immunity-related variables and a negative correlation between sense of
humor and rates of infectious illnesses. Although research on this question is limited,
the results to date have generally been disappointing.
With regard to infectious illnesses, McClelland and Cheriff (1997) found no cor-
relation between several self-report measures of sense of humor and the frequency or
severity of colds experienced by participants, either retrospectively or prospectively
over a period of three months. Several studies have also examined correlations
between levels of S-IgA measured in saliva and participants' sense of humor as assessed
by self-report scales. Although two early studies with very small sample sizes reported
sizable positive correlations between scores on the Coping Humor Scale (CHS) and
S-IgA (Dillon et al., 1985; Dillon and Totten, 1989), some later studies with larger
sample sizes failed to replicate these findings (Labott et al., 1990; Lefcourt et al., 1990;
R. A. Martin and Dobbin, 1988).
It should be noted, however, that immunity levels are likely to fluctuate consid-
erably over time, so that levels obtained in a single assay may be too unreliable to
expect significant correlations with a trait measure of humor. Future research should
aggregate immune measures across a number of assays over a period of time and
examine correlations with trait humor test scores. An even better method would be
to take a longitudinal approach, examining possible associations between day-to-day
fluctuations in participants' experiences of humor, laughter, and cheerfulness, and
corresponding fluctuations in their levels of various immunity variables over a number
HUMOR AND PHYSICAL HEALTH
of days or weeks. A link between humor and immunity would be supported if increases
and decreases in immunity from day to day are systematically related to the experi-
ence of more or less humor on those days.
Finally, James Dobbin and I conducted a study to determine whether sense of
humor as a personality trait might moderate the effects of life stress on immunity
(R. A. Martin and Dobbin, 1988). Numerous past studies have shown that stress can
have an adverse effect on various components of the immune system (Uchino et al.,
2000). As we saw in Chapter 9, there is some evidence that people with a greater sense
of humor are better able to cope with stress, and they might therefore also be less
likely to experience the adverse effects of stress on immunity. In our study, using
undergraduate students as participants, we administered a measure of daily stress and
assayed S-IgA levels in saliva samples on two different occasions 1 V2 months apart.
Sense of humor was assessed using several self-report scales, including the SHRQ,
CHS, and SHQ.
The results revealed that daily stress scores at Time 1 were negatively related to
S-IgA levels at Time 2, indicating an immunosuppressive effect of stress. More impor-
tantly, significant stress-moderating effects were found on this relationship with three
of the four sense of humor measures. In each case, participants with low humor scores
showed strong negative correlations between stress and immunoglobulins, whereas
this association was much weaker or even nonexistent among those with high humor
scores. Although these findings are in need of replication, they suggest that the stress-
moderating effects of humor that have been found in other studies with mood mea-
sures may also extend to effects of stress on immunity.
Overall, despite the claims that are often made in the popular media and "humor
and health" literature, the existing evidence for beneficial effects of humor on immu-
nity is still rather weak and inconclusive. Although a number of laboratory experi-
ments have found significant changes in some components of immunity while
participants were watching humorous videotapes, these findings have not always been
replicated, with some results even going in opposite directions in different studies.
The correlational studies have generally failed to find significant associations between
sense of humor and immunity, raising questions about the long-term clinical signifi-
cance of the short-term effects that have been found in the laboratory.
It should also be noted that none of the laboratory studies assessed the frequency
of Duchenne laughter and smiling or the funniness of the comedy videotapes. Future
research should include such measures to examine whether they are correlated with
the strength of any observed changes in immunity, thereby providing further evidence
that the effects are due to mirth. The studies also have tended to be very small, with
numerous methodological weaknesses. Part of the difficulty here seems to be that,
unfortunately, very little funding is available for conducting these sorts of experiments,
which tend to be quite costly. Research on possible effects of humor on immunity
does not seem to have a high priority for the government granting agencies and phar-
maceutical companies that fond most of the health-related research. Consequently,
researchers in this area have had to make do with small-scale studies, cutting corners
HUMORANDPAIN 32
on the types of control groups and other design features that are needed in order to
draw firm conclusions.
HUMOR AND PAIN
As noted earlier in the chapter, the case of Norman Cousins suggested that laugh-
ter may have a pain-reducing effect, perhaps due to the hypothesized release of endor-
phins in the brain when people are experiencing mirthful emotion. Since then, several
experiments have been conducted to determine whether humor can be shown to
increase pain tolerance under controlled laboratory conditions. These investigations
have employed research designs similar to those used in the immunity research, testing
participants' pain threshold or tolerance before and after exposing them to comedy
videotapes and comparing the findings with those obtained in nonhumorous control
conditions.
Pain threshold and tolerance are measured using procedures that were developed
in traditional experimental studies of pain, in which participants are exposed to painful
(but not harmful) stimuli. The most popular of these is the cold pressor procedure,
in which participants are asked to immerse their arm in a tub of ice cold water for up
to a few minutes. Pain threshold is defined as the amount of time elapsed before the
participant reports the stimulus to be painful, while pain tolerance is the duration of
time before the individual cannot tolerate the stimulus any longer and wishes to
terminate it (i.e., remove his or her arm from the ice water).
These experiments have generally been more carefully controlled and method-
ologically rigorous than the immunity research (likely because they are less expensive
to conduct). Most of the studies have had several control groups, controlling for such
factors as distraction, relaxation, and negative emotion. For example, Rosemary
Cogan and her colleagues conducted an experiment in which college students were
randomly assigned to either humor (an audiotape of Lily Tbmlin performing stand-
up comedy), relaxation (a progressive muscle relaxation tape), dull narrative (a lecture
on ethics), or no-treatment control conditions (Cogan, Cogan, Waltz, and McCue,
1987). The results showed no difference between the laughter and relaxation groups
on pain threshold measures obtained following the manipulation; however, thresholds
for both of these groups were significantly higher than those for the dull narrative
and no-treatment conditions. Thus, exposure to humor and relaxation both produced
increases in the amount of noxious stimulus that participants were able to experience
before they began to perceive it as painful, suggesting that humor, like relaxation, may
have an analgesic effect.
In a second study, these same authors sought to rule out other possible alterna-
tive explanations for these findings by assigning students to either comedy (an audio-
tape of Bill Cosby performing stand-up comedy), interesting narrative (an absorbing
Edgar Allen Poe story), dull narrative (an ethics lecture), active distraction (perform-
ing a multiplication task), or no-treatment conditions. The results revealed that
HUMOR AND PHYSICAL HEALTH
participants' pain thresholds following these conditions were significantly higher in
the comedy condition than in all the other groups. These results indicate that the
humor-related increase in pain tolerance was not simply due to distraction or absorp-
tion, suggesting a possible physiological mechanism. Similar results have been
obtained in other well-controlled experiments (J. Weaver and Zillmann, 1994;
Weisenberg, Tepper, and Schwarzwald, 1995; Zillmann, Rockwell, Schweitzer, and
Sundar, 1993), providing fairly consistent evidence that exposure to comedy results
in increased pain threshold and tolerance.
There is also some evidence that the analgesic effects of humor observed in the
laboratory may extend to clinical interventions, but perhaps only with moderate rather
than severe levels of pain. In a field study, James Rotton and Mark Shats (1996)
assigned hospitalized orthopedic surgery patients to one of three conditions: (1) a
humorous movie group, who watched four feature-length comedy movies during the
two days post-surgery; (2) a nonhumorous movie group, who watched four dramatic
movies; or (3) a no-movie control group. The results showed lower levels of minor
analgesic (e.g., aspirin) usage during the two days post-surgery in participants watch-
ing the humorous movies as compared to those in the other two groups. However,
these effects did not extend to the use of major analgesics such as Demerol and
Percodan. Furthermore, these findings were only obtained among patients in the
humorous movie condition who were permitted to choose which movies they would
watch; those who were not given any choice over the comedy movies they were to
watch actually showed significantly higher levels of analgesic usage compared to the
control groups. Thus, watching humorous films that are not consistent with one's own
humor preferences may be aversive rather than beneficial.
Although these studies suggest that exposure to humor can reduce pain, it is inter-
esting to note that similar effects are also found with negative emotions. Experiments
that have included negative emotion control conditions, in addition to comedy con-
ditions, have demonstrated similar increases in pain threshold and tolerance with
exposure to videotapes inducing emotions like disgust, horror, or sadness. For
example, Matisyohyu Weisenberg and colleagues (1995) found equal increases in pain
tolerance in a group of participants exposed to a comedy film and a group exposed to
a disgusting horror film, both of which showed greater pain tolerance than those in
neutral-film and no-film control conditions. Similar results were found in other
studies comparing the effects of humor to tragedy (Zillmann et al., 1993) and sadness
(J. Weaver and Zillmann, 1994). These findings suggest that the observed analgesic
effects may occur with both positive and negative emotional arousal, rather than being
specific to mirth.
Although these humor-related increases in pain tolerance and threshold appear
to be quite robust, the exact mechanisms involved are still not clear. The effects appear
to take some time to build up, since they have only been found in studies that tested
pain tolerance after the comedy film ended and not while participants were still
watching the film (Nevo, Keinan, and Teshimovsky-Arditi, 1993). Furthermore,
Weisenberg and colleagues found that the increased pain threshold and tolerance con-
tinued for 30 minutes after exposure to a humorous videotape, even after participants'
HUMOR AND PAIN 32!
self-rated moods had returned to baseline (Weisenberg, Raz, and Hener, 1998). The
authors interpreted these findings as indicating that humor-related mirth induces
physiological changes that affect the sensory components of pain, rather than simply
altering the cognitive-affective-motivational components of pain, and that these phys-
iological changes take some time to develop and continue even after initial mood
changes have dissipated.
A study by Diana Mahony and her colleagues suggests that humor-related
increases in pain tolerance may be mediated by expectancies (Mahony, Burroughs, and
Hieatt, 2001). In this study, before being shown a humorous videotape, the partici-
pants were told either that humor is known to increase pain tolerance (positive
expectancy condition), or that humor has been shown to decrease pain tolerance (neg-
ative expectancy condition), or they were told nothing about the effects of humor on
pain (no expectancy condition). The positive expectancy and no expectancy groups
both showed significantly greater increases in pain thresholds following exposure to
the comedy videotape, as compared to the negative expectancy group. These results
suggest that the analgesic effects of humor may be a sort of placebo effect. However,
this does not negate the possibility that they are mediated by physiological processes,
since placebo analgesic effects have been shown in other studies to be mediated by
physiological mechanisms including endorphin production in the brain (Benedetti,
2002).
Until recently, none of the humor and pain studies had examined correlations
between the frequency of participants' laughter during the comedy film and changes
in their pain tolerance, and it was therefore unclear whether the effects are due to
laughter in particular, to the positive emotion of mirth, or to some other factor such
as the cognitions involved in humor. A recent experiment by Karen Zweyer and her
colleagues was designed to address this question. In this study, participants watched
a comedy film (Mr. Bean at the Dentist} that contained sound effects but no dialogue,
and they were instructed to either (1) enjoy the film but inhibit all smiling and laugh-
ter, (2) smile and laugh as much as possible during the film, or (3) produce a humor-
ous narrative while watching the film (Zweyer, Velker, and Ruch, 2004). Using the
cold pressor procedure, pain tolerance was measured before, immediately after, and
20 minutes after the film. The researchers also videotaped the participants during the
procedure, and subsequently coded their facial expressions for genuine (Duchenne)
and forced (non-Duchenne) smiling and laughter, using the Facial Action Coding
System (which was described in Chapter 6).
Overall, the three conditions yielded similar significant increases in pain thresh-
old and tolerance relative to baseline, which were evident immediately after the film
and continued 20 minutes later. These results indicate that neither laughter nor
humor production are necessary, beyond feelings of amusement, for the pain reduc-
tion effect to occur. Moreover, the observed increases in pain tolerance were found
to be positively associated with genuine enjoyment smiles (Duchenne display), but not
with the frequency or intensity of laughter. In fact, voluntary efforts to exhibit or
amplify laughter-related positive emotions were actually negatively associated with
pain tolerance. Although these findings should be replicated before we can draw firm
HUMOR AND PHYSICAL HEALTH
conclusions, they cast doubt on the hypothesis (derived from the case of Norman
Cousins) that hearty laughter is necessary for the increase in pain tolerance to oc-
cur. Instead, the results suggest that the mechanisms have more to do with the
amusement-related positive emotion of mirth. Laughter does not seem to be neces-
sary and, in fact, forcing oneself to laugh seemed to have a contrary effect (a finding
that may be problematic for the laughter club movement).
In summary, there is quite consistent empirical support for Norman Cousins'
observation that laughter reduces pain, although the evidence suggests that the effect
is not due to laughter per se, but rather to the positive emotion of mirth that accom-
panies humor and that is typically expressed by laughter. The research also indicates
that these analgesic effects occur with negative as well as positive emotions. We still
do not know, however, whether the humor-related increases in pain tolerance are
mediated by endorphins. Indeed, the popular view that humorous mirth is associated
with endorphin production in the brain has not yet been substantiated by research.
In fact, experiments that have assessed levels of beta-endorphin in blood samples have
net found any changes in this variable when participants were exposed to comedy
films (L. S. Berk et al., 1989; Itami et al., 1994). However, blood tests may not be sen-
sitive to changes in opiate levels occurring in the brain. One potential method for
investigating the endorphin mediation hypothesis would be to determine whether
humor-associated increases in pain tolerance disappear when participants are first
given the opiate antagonist Naloxone. If Naloxone, which blocks endorphin recep-
tors in the brain, cancels out the pain-reducing effect of humor, this would indicate
that the effect is mediated by endorphins. This is an interesting question that should
be pursued in future research.
HUMOR, BLOOD PRESSURE, AND HEART DISEASE
Although some authors have speculated that frequent hearty laughter may lead
to a reduction in blood pressure (e.g., McGhee, 1999), experimental studies indicate
that laughter is actually associated with short-term increases in blood pressure and
heart rate, but no longer-term effects. Sabina White and Phame Camarena (1989)
conducted a six-week intervention study to examine the effects of laughter on systolic
blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP), and heart rate (HR). They ran-
domly assigned participants to a laughter treatment group, a relaxation group, or a
health-education control group, each of which met for 6 weekly sessions of lV2 hours.
The results showed no significant presession to postsession changes in DBP, SBP, or
HR in the laughter or health-education groups, whereas the relaxation group showed
significantly lower postsession HR and SBP in comparison with both of the other
groups. Thus, this study did not support the hypothesis that sustained laughter results
in lower levels of heart rate and blood pressure over time.
In a study of the relation between trait sense of humor and blood pressure,
Herbert Lefcourt and his colleagues examined correlations between participants'
scores on the Situational Humor Response Questionnaire (SHRQ) and the Coping
HUMOR AND ILLNESS SYMPTOMS 327
Humor Scale (CHS) and their SBP and DBF levels during a series of stressful labo-
ratory tasks (Lefcourt, Davidson, Prkachin, and Mills, 1997). No significant correla-
tions were found between the sense of humor scales and DBF, but an interesting sex
difference was revealed in the pattern of correlations with SBP. Women with higher
scores on the sense of humor measures, as compared to women with lower scores,
were found to have generally lower levels of SBP, supporting the idea that a sense of
humor is negatively related to blood pressure. However, the opposite relation was
found for men: those with higher humor scores had higher overall levels of SBP as
compared to their low-humor male counterparts. The authors suggested that these
findings may be due to differences in the way men and women express humor, with
women perhaps engaging in more tolerant, self-accepting, and adaptive forms of
humor, potentially leading to more beneficial physiological effects (Crawford and
Gressley, 1991). In contrast, greater humor in men may reflect greater competitive-
ness and aggressiveness, resulting in more elevated blood pressure. These findings
hint at the possibility that different styles or types of humor may have quite different
health consequences.
Adam Clark and his colleagues conducted a study at the University of Maryland
Medical Center to determine whether there is a correlation between coronary heart
disease (CHD) and sense of humor (A. Clark, Seidler, and Miller, 2001). They admin-
istered the SHRQ (which, as noted in Chapter 7, assesses the degree to which indi-
viduals frequently laugh and smile in a wide variety of situations) to 300 consecutive
patients diagnosed with CHD, as well as biological family members of these patients.
The results showed that, on average, the CHD patients had significantly lower SHRQ
scores than did their healthy relatives, suggesting that a lower sense of humor may be
a risk factor for heart disease. Scores on this sense of humor measure were unrelated
to other risk factors such as diabetes, hypertension, or cigarette smoking. However,
individuals with higher SHRQ scores had significantly lower scores on a measure of
hostility, which has previously been shown to be related to a greater risk of heart
disease (Williams et al., 1980). Although these findings suggest that a sense of humor
may provide some protection against heart disease, a serious weakness of the study is
that the humor test was administered after patients had already developed the disease.
The causal effect may therefore be opposite to what is proposed: people who have
recently had a heart attack may be less inclined to respond to situations with humor
and laughter, resulting in lower SHRQ scores. Further research is therefore needed
using prospective designs to determine whether nonsymptomatic people with lower
humor scores are more likely to develop heart disease at a later time.
HUMOR AND ILLNESS SYMPTOMS
If humor and laughter confer beneficial effects on immunity and other aspects of
health, individuals who laugh more frequently and have a better sense of humor should
be generally less likely to become ill. To test this hypothesis, several researchers have
examined simple correlations between trait measures of sense of humor, such as the
HUMOR AND PHYSICAL HEALTH
SHRQ and CHS, and overall health, as measured by self-report physical symptom
checklists. Some of these studies have found the predicted negative correlations
between these variables, indicating that individuals with a greater sense of humor tend
to report fewer medical problems and illness symptoms (Boyle and Joss-Reid, 2004;
Carroll and Shmidt, 1992; Dillon and Totten, 1989; P. S. Fry, 1995; Ruch and Kohler,
1999). Other studies, however, have failed to replicate these findings (Anderson and
Arnoult, 1989; Labott and Martin, 1990; Porterfield, 1987).
Additionally, two studies found a significant stress-moderating effect of sense of
humor on self-reported illness symptomatology, indicating that individuals with
higher sense of humor scores were less likely to report becoming ill following high
levels of stressful life events (Abel, 1998; P. S. Fry, 1995). However, these findings
were not replicated in other studies with larger sample sizes (Korotkov and Hannah,
1994; Porterfield, 1987). One study even found an interaction between humor and
stress that was opposite to predictions, with high-humor individuals showing a greater
tendency to report illness following negative life events (Anderson and Arnoult, 1989).
Thus, there is no consistent evidence that people with a greater sense of humor are
less likely to become ill.
It is important to note that self-report measures of illness symptoms are often
confounded with negative emotionality or neuroticism, making them somewhat unre-
liable measures of objective health status (D. Watson and Pennebaker, 1989). People
who generally experience more negative moods, as compared to less neurotic indi-
viduals, tend to perceive themselves as being less healthy, even though they may not
differ in objective health status. Because sense of humor tests tend to be somewhat
negatively related to neuroticism, observed correlations between sense of humor and
self-reported illness symptoms may be due to this shared neuroticism component
rather than any objective health benefits of humor. It is therefore important for
researchers to partial out the effects of neuroticism in such research. This was done
in only one study, and in that study the correlation between sense of humor and phys-
ical illness symptoms disappeared after controlling for neuroticism (Korotkov and
Hannah, 1994).
A recent study by Sven Svebak and colleagues represented a unique opportunity
to include a measure of sense of humor in a large population health study that involved
the entire adult population of a county in Norway (Svebak, Martin, and Holmen,
2004). Besides completing a three-item humor measure derived from Svebak's
(1996) Sense of Humor Questionnaire (SHQ-6), over 65,000 participants completed
a survey about their illness symptoms in a variety of domains (e.g., nausea, diarrhea,
pounding heart, dyspnea, musculoskeletal pain) and their overall health satisfaction,
and were also assessed for blood pressure, height, and weight (allowing for computa-
tion of body mass index, a measure of obesity). As such, this is the largest correla-
tional study of sense of humor and health ever conducted. However, the results
provided very little evidence for a direct association between sense of humor and
health. After controlling for age, no meaningful correlations were found between
sense of humor and either illness symptoms or objective health indicators, although
the study did find a weak relation between sense of humor and satisfaction with health.
HUMOR AND LONGEVITY 329
These results suggest that, although high-humor individuals do not seem to have
objectively better health, they are somewhat more subjectively satisfied with their
health.
In view of the very large sample size of this survey, the broad age range of par-
ticipants, and the unselected nature of the sample, these data provide quite convinc-
ing evidence that people with a greater sense of humor (at least as defined by high
scores on such self-report tests as the SHQ) are no more healthy overall than are their
low-humor counterparts. If a sense of humor does confer any health benefits, it would
appear that either they are too subtle to be captured by such a cross-sectional design,
or the type of humor involved is not adequately captured by the SHQ. For example,
this study did not include a measure of life stress, so the authors were unable to
examine the possibility of a stress-moderating effect of sense of humor on health. In
addition, the possibility remains that effects of humor on health might emerge over
time in a longitudinal design.
A study by Nicholas Kuiper and Sorrel Nicholl (2004) also bears on the relation
between sense of humor and satisfaction with health. These authors suggested that it
may be important to distinguish between actual and perceived physical health, and
proposed that a sense of humor may contribute to more positive perceptions of
physical health than may actually be warranted. Using a sample of undergraduate stu-
dents, they found that individuals with higher scores on sense of humor measures
reported more positive health-related perceptions, such as less fear of serious disease
or death, less negative bodily preoccupation, and less concern about pain. These
results are consistent with the finding of Svebak et al. (2004) that higher sense of
humor is related to greater subjective satisfaction with health but not with more objec-
tive indicators of health status. These findings may help to explain the popularity of
the idea that humor is beneficial for one's health. People with a greater sense of humor
may perceive themselves to be healthier, showing less concern and preoccupation with
symptoms of illness, even though they are not objectively healthier. Thus, although
the direction of causality is unclear in correlational research such as this, it may be
that humor contributes to one's quality of life without making one physically
healthier.
HUMOR AND LONGEVITY
If humor has beneficial effects on physical health, then it should be possible to
demonstrate that, on average, people who more frequently engage in humor and
laughter tend to live longer than their less humorous counterparts. Indeed, this would
seem to be the most important test of the humor-health hypothesis. Although one
could still argue that frequently engaging in humor and laughter can at least improve
the quality if not the duration of life, it is difficult to see how claims for actual
physical health benefits of humor can be sustained if it does not prolong life.
Unfortunately, the research evidence in this regard, although limited, is not very
encouraging.
10 • HUMOR AND PHYSICAL HEALTH
James Rotton (1992), in a series of four separate studies, found no differences in
the life duration of comedians and comedy writers, as compared with that of serious
entertainers and authors. Interestingly, though, he found that both professional
humorists and serious entertainers died at a significantly younger age than did people
who were famous for other reasons, perhaps due to the stresses or unhealthy lifestyles
of people in the entertainment industry. Thus, the ability to create humor and to make
other people laugh (as epitomized in individuals who make a living by their comedic
abilities) does not appear to confer any health benefits resulting in greater longevity.
Another study suggests that having a sense of humor may actually cause people
to die at an earlier age than they would otherwise. Howard Friedman and his col-
leagues conducted analyses of data from 1178 male and female participants from the
well-known Terman Life-Cycle Study, a longitudinal investigation that followed a
cohort of intellectually gifted individuals for many decades beginning when they were
children in the 1920s (Friedman, Tucker, Tomlinson-Keasey, Schwartz, et al., 1993).
A composite measure of cheerfulness was derived from parent and teacher ratings of
sense of humor and optimism that had been obtained on these individuals at the age
of 12. Surprisingly, survival analyses revealed that those individuals who were rated
as having higher cheerfulness at age 12 had significantly higher mortality rates
throughout the ensuing decades. Thus, on average, more cheerful individuals were
more likely to die at a younger age as compared to their less cheerful counterparts.
The higher mortality rates were found in both men and women, and applied to all
causes of death.
The authors suggested that these surprising results may be due to more cheerful
individuals being less concerned about health risks and taking less care of themselves,
as compared to more serious people. Ironically, the greater health satisfaction and
lowered concern about health problems found in high-humor individuals (Kuiper and
Nicholl, 2004; Svebak, Martin et al., 2004) may lead to a more blase attitude toward
health risks and consequently higher mortality rates.
Proponents of the health benefits of humor have sought to dismiss the findings
of this study in a number of ways, suggesting, for example, that the definition of sense
of humor was inappropriate, or that the results were due to the optimism compo-
nent of the composite cheerfulness measure rather than the sense of humor compo-
nent, or that cheerfulness in this study reflected a lack of emotional adjustment.
However, these arguments do not appear to stand up under closer scrutiny. The ques-
tion that was used for rating sense of humor in this study had at its positive pole the
following description: "Extraordinarily keen sense of humor. Witty. Appreciates jokes.
Sees the funny side of everything," and at its negative pole the following: "Extremely
lacking in sense of humor. Serious and prosy. Never sees the funny side." It seems
difficult to argue that this description is very different from the way most people today
(including advocates of the "humor and health" movement) would describe a sense of
humor.
Moreover, a follow-up analysis of these data found that the higher mortality rates
remained even when the sense of humor rating was used by itself, and not just in com-
bination with optimism (L. R. Martin et al., 2002). These analyses also found that
CONCLUSION 331
individuals who were rated higher on cheerfulness as children were no more likely to
be neurotic or to have emotional problems later in life and, indeed, they were better
adjusted and more carefree in adulthood, as well as being more extraverted. On the
other hand, the analyses showed that children who were rated as more cheerful in
childhood went on to smoke more cigarettes, consume more alcohol, and engage in
more risky hobbies as adults, although these unhealthy lifestyle behaviors did not com-
pletely account statistically for their higher mortality rates. Overall, then, rather than
supporting the hypothesis that a sense of humor increases longevity, the existing evi-
dence, though limited, suggests that a sense of humor may actually be an illness risk
factor.
CONCLUSION
Of all the health benefits claimed for humor and laughter, the most consistent
research support has been found for the hypothesized analgesic effects. After watch-
ing humorous films in the laboratory, individuals tend to be able to tolerate increased
levels of pain, and there is some limited clinical evidence that humor can reduce post-
surgical pain. The research suggests that the observed pain-reducing effects are likely
due to amusement-related positive emotion, rather than to laughter per se, although
similar effects are also found with negative emotions. The popular idea that these
effects are mediated by the production of endorphins or other opiates in the brain has
not yet been investigated, although this appears to be a plausible explanation. More
extensive research is needed to explore these mechanisms and to determine whether
these effects are strong enough to be useful for applications of humor in the treat-
ment of pain resulting from clinical conditions.
With regard to possible effects of humor and laughter on immunity, the research
to date is not as consistent or conclusive. Some short-term effects of exposure to
comedy on some components of immunity have been observed in the laboratory, and
recent findings of reduced allergic reactions are intriguing. However, these studies
tend to be quite small, with many methodological limitations, and some of the find-
ings have been inconsistent across studies. More systematic and rigorous research is
needed to replicate these findings and explore possible mechanisms before firm con-
clusions can be drawn. Research in the general field of psychoneuroimmunology indi-
cates that emotional states can influence immunity through the many communication
channels linking the brain and the immune system. There is therefore reason to expect
interactions between the emotion of mirth and immunity as well. However, these
complex interactions are still not well understood, and there does not appear to be a
simple one-to-one relation between specific emotions and particular changes in
immunity (Booth and Pennebaker, 2000).
Although the research offers some interesting suggestions of possible effects of
humor on immunity, there is little evidence that people who have a better sense of
humor and laugh more frequently have better immunity, enjoy better health overall,
or live longer lives. There is even some research suggesting that more humorous and
10 • HUMOR AND PHYSICAL HEALTH
cheerful people may actually die at an earlier age than their more serious counter-
parts. This may be due to high-humor individuals having less concern about health
issues, a more risky lifestyle, or a reduced tendency to take health problems seriously
and seek appropriate medical treatment when needed.
Nonetheless, even though more humorous and cheerful people may not live
longer, they may enjoy a better quality of life and greater overall life satisfaction. It
also remains possible that different types of humor may affect different aspects of
health in different ways. Although a cheerful sense of humor might contribute to
earlier mortality by causing people to take less care of themselves overall, it remains
possible that mirth could produce biochemical changes having some health benefits,
or that the use of certain styles of humor could facilitate coping with stress or enhance
intimate relationships, indirectly producing some positive health effects.
Those who advocate humor and laughter as a pathway to better health seem to
have moved too quickly to promote their views on the basis of rather flimsy research
evidence. Besides the need for more basic research in this area, the effectiveness of
humor-based interventions needs to be carefully evaluated before they are widely
implemented. For some proponents, this health fad may be seen as an opportunity
for making money through promotional books and workshops, but many others
appear to be motivated by genuine concern about helping others. In either case, a
strong commitment to belief in health benefits of humor and laughter can make it
difficult for advocates to evaluate the research objectively.
One could perhaps argue in defense of proponents of the "humor and health"
movement that, although humor may not produce all the health benefits that have
been claimed, at least it is not likely to be harmful and it can enhance people's enjoy-
ment if not the duration of their lives. There is certainly some merit to this line of
argument. There is undoubtedly nothing wrong with encouraging people to enjoy
humor and to laugh more often, especially if they are suffering from a serious illness
that would otherwise reduce their enjoyment of life. However, there is a risk that
unfounded claims of health benefits of humor and laughter may raise false hopes in
sick individuals.
There is also a danger that an emphasis on the health benefits of humor and
laughter could lead to an unjustified perception that people have more control over
their health than they actually do, fostering a subtle tendency to blame people for
their illnesses. Consequently, those who become ill may begin to feel guilty because
they supposedly did not laugh enough. In addition, exaggerated claims about
unfounded health benefits of humor and laughter can contribute to perceptions that
this is nothing more than a fringe movement and a passing fad, which could dissuade
researchers and funding agencies from conducting and funding well-designed large-
scale experiments in this field, thereby delaying progress in identifying those health
effects that may be genuine.
Theories about possible health benefits of humor need to be based on plausible
biological mechanisms. From an evolutionary perspective, it seems unlikely that the
primary function of humor and laughter is to improve people's physical health.
As noted in Chapter 6, comparative research suggests that the positive emotion
CONCLUSION 333
associated with humor is related to social play, and that laughter is an expressive behav-
ior communicating playful emotions and intentions to others. In Chapter 5, 1 also dis-
cussed in some detail the many social functions of humor and laughter. Thus, the
origins of humor and laughter seem to have more to do with social interaction and
the social nature of human existence than with physical health. Nonetheless, it remains
possible that these emotions and behaviors may have some physiological and psycho-
logical concomitants that could indirectly affect aspects of health.
The interactions between emotions and immunity that have been found by
researchers likely have to do with the fact that both are involved in constructing and
maintaining relationships between the individual and his or her environment (Booth
and Pennebaker, 2000). Emotional feelings of distress and well-being are signals con-
cerning the state of the organism, providing useful information for the immune
system, which is also concerned with individual integrity and well-being. Hence, feel-
ings of cheerfulness and a playful, humorous perspective may be in part a signal that
one's physiological resources are adequate for dealing with threats to well-being, as
well as perhaps contributing to the mobilization of those resources (Leventhal and
Patrick-Miller, 2000). Thus, there are some theoretical grounds for proposing possi-
ble effects of humor on some health-related variables, even though these effects may
not be the primary function of humor from an evolutionary perspective.
Despite the limitations of the existing research evidence, more systematic inves-
tigation in this area appears to be warranted by the suggestive research findings, as
well as the theoretical plausibility of some sort of humor-health connections. As dis-
cussed earlier, future experimental research should include appropriate control con-
ditions to rule out alternative explanations for findings, as well as examining the role
of laughter and mirth in mediating any observed effects. Animal research may also be
helpful in clarifying neural and biochemical mechanisms involved in physiological
effects of play-related emotions (Panksepp and Burgdorf, 2003).
Future research should also examine the different theoretical models linking
humor and health that I discussed earlier in this chapter. Most of the existing research
has focused on hypothesized direct effects of laughter and mirthful emotion on phys-
iological variables such as immunity. Little research has been conducted on possible
indirect effects, such as potential health benefits of enhanced interpersonal relation-
ships and more effective coping with stress resulting from a healthy sense of humor.
Here, as suggested in the Chapter 1 1 , it would seem to be important to distinguish
between different types or styles of humor, some of which may be beneficial to health
while others may even have adverse effects. In the end, it may be that, as with psy-
chological health, the absence of certain deleterious types of humor (e.g., hostile
humor) may be as important (or perhaps even more important) for physical health as
the presence of other more benign forms of humor.
CHAPTER 11
Applications of Humor in
Psychotherapy, Education, and
the Workplace
O
"ver the past two decades, there has been
a growing interest in potential applications of humor in a variety of professional
domains. In Chapter 10, 1 discussed possible benefits of humor and laughter for phys-
ical health, as well as the use of various humor-based interventions by health care
providers. In this chapter, I will explore potential benefits (and also possible risks) of
humor applied to the fields of psychotherapy and counseling, education, and the
workplace.
A number of individuals working in each of these areas have enthusiastically pro-
moted the use of humor-related techniques and interventions in their respective dis-
ciplines, and numerous articles in professional and trade journals, books, and Internet
websites have appeared on this topic. Among its membership, the Association for
Applied and Therapeutic Humor (AATH) includes psychotherapists, marriage and
family counselors, teachers, and consultants to business and industry, along with
physicians, nurses, and other health care practitioners, all of whom are interested in
the way humor and laughter may be applied to their respective fields.
Most of the claims that have been made about potential benefits of humor in these
different areas are based on anecdotal evidence and personal experiences, although
humor advocates also frequently cite various research findings to bolster their argu-
ments. Although the empirical research in each of these areas is quite limited, in
the following sections I will explore the relevant findings, attempting to weigh the
335
APPLICATIONS OF HUMOR
evidence for various claims, as well as pointing out those questions that still require
further study.
The topics of this chapter bring us to the applied areas of psychology, particularly
clinical and counseling, educational, and industrial-organizational (I/O) psychology.
Each of these branches of psychology represents a combination of professional prac-
tice and science. As practitioners, psychologists working in these fields seek to apply
relevant findings and principles derived from the more basic research areas of the dis-
cipline to solve real-world problems relating to individual emotional and behavioral
disturbance, teaching and education, and the world of business and industry, respec-
tively. As scientists, they conduct empirical research to examine the effectiveness of
their interventions and to answer important theoretical and practical questions relat-
ing to their fields.
As a consequence of this scientific orientation, applied psychologists tend to be
rather skeptical about unsubstantiated claims regarding novel treatment interventions,
teaching methods, or business practices, emphasizing instead the importance of apply-
ing empirical methods to investigate the validity of these sorts of practices. Thus,
while maintaining an open mind about possible benefits of humor- related applications
in these areas, a psychological perspective requires that we carefully sift through the
evidence and avoid being carried away by unfounded enthusiasm.
HUMOR IN PSYCHOTHERAPY AND COUNSELING
Based on the idea that humor has important benefits for mental health (as dis-
cussed in Chapter 9), therapists from a variety of different theoretical perspectives are
showing a growing interest in the potential role of humor in psychotherapy and coun-
seling. A number of journal articles and books have been written on this topic in recent
years (Buckman, 1994; Franzini, 2000, 2001; W. F. Fry and Salameh, 1987, 1993;
Gelkopf and Kreitler, 1996; Haig, 1988; Kuhlman, 1984; Lemma, 1999; Rutherford,
1994; Saper, 1987; Strean, 1994). Humor-based interventions have been advocated in
the treatment of a wide variety of psychological problems ranging from depression
(Richman, 2003), stress-related disorders (Prerost, 1988), obsessive-compulsive dis-
orders (Surkis, 1993), and phobias (Ventis, Higbee, and Murdock, 2001), to antiso-
cial personality disorder (Martens, 2004), schizophrenia (Witztum, Briskin, and
Lerner, 1999), and mental retardation (Davidson and Brown, 1989).
Humor has been recommended as a useful tool in individual therapy and coun-
seling (Rutherford, 1994), group therapy (Bloch, 1987; Bloch, Browning, and
McGrath, 1983), family and marital counseling (Odell, 1996), and in the treatment
of children and adolescents (Bernet, 1993) and the elderly (Prerost, 1993; Richman,
1995). The therapeutic benefits of humor have been lauded by therapists from many
different theoretical schools, including Adlerian (Rutherford, 1994), behavioral
(Franzini, 2000; Ventis et al., 2001), cognitive (Gelkopf and Kreitler, 1996), psycho-
analytic (Bergmann, 1999; Korb, 1988), rational-emotive (Borcherdt, 2002), and
strategic family therapy (Madanes, 1987).
HUMOR IN PSYCHOTHERAPY AND COUNSELING 337
Clinical psychologist Louis Franzini (2001) defined therapeutic humor as "the
intentional and spontaneous use of humor techniques by therapists and other health
care professionals, which can lead to improvements in the self-understanding and
behavior of clients or patients" (p. 171). He suggested that therapeutic humor can
take almost any form, including formal jokes or riddles (although these would be rel-
atively rare), spontaneous puns or spoonerisms, behavioral or verbal parapraxes (i.e.,
unintentional humorous "Freudian slips"), humorous comments pointing out absurd-
ities or illogical reasoning, exaggerations to the extreme, humorous self-deprecations
on the part of the therapist, illustrations of universal human frailties, and comical
observations of current social events. In order for humor to be beneficial in therapy,
according to Franzini, the point of the humor should be clearly relevant to a current
therapeutic issue, such as an inner conflict or a personal characteristic of the client.
The immediate consequence of such therapeutic uses of humor is typically a positive
emotional experience shared by the therapist and the client, ranging in intensity from
quiet empathic amusement to loud laughter.
There are three general ways of thinking about potential applications of humor
to therapy. First, some authors have advocated a sort of "humor as therapy" approach,
attempting to develop a whole system of therapy that is based largely on humor.
Second, humor could be the basis of specific therapeutic techniques that clinicians might
have in their repertoire (along with a number of other, non-humor-based interven-
tions) and which they could apply to the treatment of particular types of client prob-
lems. Third, humor may be viewed as a communication skill that, like other therapist
characteristics such as empathy and genuineness, contributes to a therapist's overall
effectiveness regardless of his or her theoretical orientation.
In the following sections, I will explore each of these approaches in turn, exam-
ining research evidence where it exists, followed by a discussion of potential risks in
the use of humor in psychotherapy and counseling. Although my focus here is on psy-
chotherapy and counseling, much of this discussion is also relevant to the use of humor
in other helping and health care professions such as social work, medicine, nursing,
physiotherapy, occupational therapy, and so on (cf. du Pre, 1998; Leber and Vanoli,
2001).
Humor-Based Therapies
A large number of different "schools" of psychotherapy were developed and pro-
moted by various clinicians during the 1960s and 1970s. A few of these approaches
emphasized the importance of fostering a healthy sense of humor as one of the main
goals of therapy. According to these approaches, a humorous perspective on life is not
only an important indicator of psychological health, but also a means to maintain and
strengthen healthy functioning. Some of these approaches employed specific humor-
based techniques to induce change in clients, while others emphasized the role of the
therapist in modeling a humorous outlook and encouraging any humor that emerges
naturally as the client gains a more realistic outlook and a greater ability to cope
with life.
APPLICATIONS OF HUMOR
One well-known approach to therapy that makes extensive use of humor is
Rational-Emotive Therapy (RET), which was developed by Albert Ellis (e.g., Ellis
and Grieger, 1986). According to this approach, people develop psychological distur-
bance as a consequence of having irrational beliefs, dysfunctional attitudes, and unre-
alistic absolute standards. The aim of therapy is therefore to challenge and dispute
clients' false beliefs and to replace them with more realistic and adaptive assumptions
and attitudes. One way of doing this is for the therapist to use humorous exaggera-
tion and even sarcasm to point out the absurdity of clients' irrational belief systems.
Ellis (1977) wrote that "human disturbance largely consists of exaggerating the
significance or the seriousness of things, and the ripping up of such exaggerations
by humorous counter-exaggeration may well prove one of the main methods of
therapeutic attack" (p. 4).
Besides being a way of disputing the irrational assumptions of clients, Ellis sug-
gested that humor is beneficial in therapy because it brings enjoyment and mirth,
makes life seem more worthwhile, and provides alternative ways of dealing with prob-
lems. Although Ellis's use of humor appears to be quite aggressive, he emphasized
that it must be done in a way that communicates acceptance of clients and encour-
ages them to accept themselves despite their errors and human fallibilities. Nonethe-
less, many clinicians are uncomfortable with such a confrontational style of humor in
therapy. Most would agree that, due to its potential for harm, such humor must be
employed very cautiously and skillfully, if at all.
Another therapeutic approach that employs humor to actively confront and
challenge clients is Provocative Therapy, which was developed by Frank Farrelly and
his colleagues (Farrelly and Brandsma, 1974; Farrelly and Lynch, 1987). Originally
devised for the treatment of chronic schizophrenia, this approach was subsequently
promoted as being beneficial for many types of psychological problems. Based on the
assumption that clients can change their self-defeating behavior patterns and over-
come psychological disturbance if they take responsibility for their own behavior, the
goal of this therapy is to provoke an emotional response in clients that results in
changes in their perceptions and actions. This is done by using humor to attack their
beliefs, feelings, and behaviors through exaggeration and sarcasm, causing them to
fight back against the therapist and eventually gain a detached, humorous perspective
on their dysfunctional behavior patterns.
Although this therapeutic approach, like RET, appears to be very aggressive and
even hostile, Farrelly and Lynch (1987) emphasized that the client must experience
the therapist as "warmly caring and fundamentally supportive" (p. 90). Similarly,
Farrelly and Brandsma (1974) stressed that "if the client is not laughing during at least
part of the therapeutic encounter, the therapist is not doing provocative therapy and
what he is doing may at times turn out to be destructive" (p. 95). Like Ellis's approach,
provocative therapy appears to have a potential for harm if used by an unskilled
therapist.
A less confrontational therapeutic system giving an important place to humor is
Walter O'ConnelPs (1981; 1987) Natural High Therapy, a humanistic approach that
borrows heavily from the ideas of Carl Jung and Alfred Adler. According to this
HUMOR IN PSYCHOTHERAPY AND COUNSELING 33?
approach, psychological symptoms are manifestations of displaced creative energies
and personality constrictions resulting from frustrating life experiences. The goal of
therapy is to increase self-actualization, helping the client to move from the con-
strictions of being controlled by the environment and inner compulsions to a healthy
sense of autonomy based on self-esteem and satisfying relationships with others. A
healthy sense of humor is seen as a defining characteristic of self-actualization.
Using a didactic-experiential format and combining individual and group treat-
ment modalities, Natural High Therapy employs a variety of techniques to promote
self-actualization, including psychodrama, role playing, guided imagery, and medita-
tion. Humor, which O'Connell (1981, p. 561) viewed as "the royal road toward self-
actualization," is an intrinsic part of all of these methods. However, for O'Connell,
humor was more an end than a means. Rather than forcing it onto clients, the ther-
apist's role is one of modeling a humorous outlook and encouraging any humor that
emerges spontaneously in the client.
Other clinicians who have promoted humor as an essential component of psy-
chotherapy include Harvey Mindess (1971, 1976), Martin Grotjahn (1966, 1971), and
Waleed Salameh (1987). Unfortunately, like many of the schools of therapy that arose
in past decades, little research has been conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of
most of these humor-based therapy systems or to compare them with other types of
treatment.
Humor as a Specific Therapeutic Technique
Rather than creating a whole system of therapy with humor as a central ingre-
dient, some clinicians have developed specific humor-based intervention techniques
for treating particular clients with particular problems. For example, Larry Ventis, a
clinical psychologist at the College of William and Mary, developed an application of
humor in systematic desensitization for the treatment of phobias and other fear-
related conditions. Systematic desensitization is a behavioral intervention in which
clients vividly imagine themselves experiencing a series of progressively more threat-
ening fear-evoking situations while engaging in muscle relaxation exercises. The
repeated pairing of a relaxation response with exposure to a feared stimulus gradually
diminishes the feelings of anxiety evoked by the stimulus, enabling the individual to
overcome the phobic aversion.
In an early case study, Ventis (1973) described the successful use of humorous
imagery instead of muscle relaxation during a session of systematic desensitization in
the treatment of a young woman who suffered from social anxiety. In another case
study published around the same time, Ronald Smith (1973) reported that the use of
humor in nine sessions of systematic desensitization was highly effective in reducing
strong, maladaptive anger responses in a 2 2 -year-old woman, after previous attempts
at treatment using standard muscle relaxation procedures had failed.
More recently, Ventis and his colleagues (2001) conducted a more carefully con-
trolled clinical study to investigate the use of humor in systematic desensitization in
the treatment of spider phobias. Forty undergraduate students with spider phobias
APPLICATIONS OF HUMOR
were randomly assigned to either four individual weekly treatment sessions using
traditional systematic desensitization with muscle relaxation, four sessions of desen-
sitization using humor, or a no-treatment control condition. In the humor treatment
condition, participants were given humor creation exercises and weekly homework
assignments in which they were encouraged to generate humorous statements and
images relating to spiders. In each therapy session, they were also taken through a
hierarchy of mental imagery scenarios in which humorous images were paired with
anxiety-evoking situations having to do with exposure to spiders.
The results revealed that participants in both the humor desensitization group
and the standard muscle relaxation group showed significant and equally large reduc-
tions in their fear of spiders on self-report and behavioral outcome measures, whereas
those in the no-treatment group did not show any significant improvement. Further
analyses revealed that the reduction of spider phobia in the two treatment groups was
mediated by increased feelings of self-efficacy. The authors suggested that the expe-
rience of humor-related positive emotion may have altered the cognitive appraisals of
participants in the humor treatment group, providing them with an increased sense
of self-efficacy and a greater willingness to approach and interact with spiders. Overall,
this study provided evidence that a humor-based intervention may be just as effective
as (but not necessarily more effective than) standard muscle relaxation in systematic
desensitization for the treatment of phobias.
Another well-known therapeutic technique that has often been viewed as being
based on humor is "paradoxical intention," which was developed by Viktor Frankl
(1960) and has been used for treating various problems including obsessive-
compulsive symptoms, anxiety, depression, and agoraphobia. In this technique, clients
are encouraged to try to increase the frequency and exaggerate the severity of their
symptoms. It is assumed that these paradoxical efforts put the clients into a sort of
"double bind" that can only be resolved by recognizing the absurdity of their symp-
toms, enabling them to develop the ability to laugh at their neurotic behavior pat-
terns and gain a feeling of detachment from them. It might therefore seem reasonable
to expect that clients with a greater sense of humor would derive more benefit from
this type of treatment.
However, contrary to this hypothesis, a study by Geraldine Newton and Thomas
Dowd (1990) found that the use of paradoxical interventions in the treatment of
students with test anxiety was much more effective with clients having low (rather
than high) scores on measures of sense of humor. The authors suggested that the
high-humor participants may have treated the paradoxical intervention as merely a
joke that was not to be taken seriously, and were therefore unable to experience the
therapeutic "double bind" that is required for the intervention to be effective. In con-
trast, low-humor participants may have taken the intervention more seriously and
attempted to cooperate with the therapist, resulting in the paradoxical effectiveness
of the treatment. These findings suggest that, although paradoxical interventions may
work by stimulating a humorous perspective toward one's neurotic symptoms, they
need to be initially taken seriously to be effective. Individuals who normally approach
life with a humorous outlook may be less likely to benefit from them.
HUMOR IN PSYCHOTHERAPY AND COUNSELING 34
Eliezer Witztum and his colleagues (1999) described the use of paradoxical inter-
ventions and other humor-based techniques to treat delusions and hallucinations in
12 patients with chronic schizophrenia who had been hospitalized for at least eight
years. After three months of more serious "persuasion therapy" failed to produce any
therapeutic improvement in the patients, the therapists began using a humorous
approach in individual and group therapy sessions. This involved making joking com-
ments in a sympathetic and lighthearted manner to satirize and trivialize the patients'
delusions and hallucinations, highlighting the irony and absurdity of these symptoms
through playful exaggeration, and thereby encouraging the patients not to take them
overly seriously. At the end of three months of this humor treatment, evaluations of
the patients' mental state using a psychiatric rating scale revealed significant
improvements in functioning in most of the patients, and these gains were found to
be maintained in a three-month follow-up assessment. Although further research is
needed, this small study provided promising evidence of the potential benefits of
humor-based techniques in treating chronic psychotic symptoms.
Humor as a Therapist Skill
A third approach to the role of humor in therapy is to view it as a type of social
skill or interpersonal competence that contributes to therapists' overall effectiveness,
regardless of their theoretical orientation or the specific techniques they employ (e.g.,
Franzini, 2001; Saper, 1987). In other words, it may be important for psychothera-
pists to have a "good sense of humor." As we have seen throughout this book, humor
may be viewed as a form of interpersonal communication that can serve a wide variety
of social functions, ranging from prosocial to aggressive. Psychotherapy is an inter-
personal process, in which the relationship between the therapist and the client is
arguably the main vehicle for therapeutic change (Teyber, 1988). As in most types of
interpersonal relationships, humor and laughter occur quite frequently in the inter-
actions between therapists and their clients.
One recent study of individual psychotherapy sessions found that laughter in
either the client or therapist occurred on average every three minutes, with clients
laughing more than twice as often as therapists (Marci et al., 2004). The ability to use
humor effectively with clients may be viewed as a therapeutic skill that clinicians need
to practice and refine, just as they need to develop a number of other communication
skills such as empathic understanding, active listening, nonverbal communication, and
so forth. In this view, then, humor is something that occurs spontaneously and natu-
rally in the normal interactions between therapist and client, which may be used with
varying degrees of skill and may be more or less beneficial to the client, rather than
being a specific technique that is intentionally employed by the therapist. Humor in
itself is not inherently therapeutic; to be effective, it must be used in a therapeutic
manner.
A good deal of therapy outcome research indicates that the most effective thera-
pists are those who convey an attitude of empathy, caring, and genuineness toward
their clients (Bachelor and Horvath, 1999). Humor is therefore most likely to be
APPLICATIONS OF HUMOR
therapeutic if it is used in a genuine manner, communicating empathic understand-
ing and concern for the client. On the other hand, humor may be nontherapeutic,
and even harmful, if it leaves clients feeling misunderstood, if it conveys a sense of
dismissing or denigrating their feelings and perceptions, or if it is used by therapists
to mask their own feelings of discomfort with the issues raised by their clients.
Rather than engaging in humor unthinkingly simply because it is enjoyable, ther-
apists need to be cognizant of the functions being served by their own use of humor
and that of their clients at each stage of therapy, and evaluate its likely therapeutic
effects. In view of the important role of humor in social interaction generally, and the
potential benefits and risks of humor in psychotherapy, Franzini (2001) has argued
that the topic of humor should be a formal component of the curriculum in the train-
ing of all psychotherapists and counselors.
Although specific techniques vary across different approaches, most types of
therapy share several common goals. These include: (1) establishing positive rapport
with the client; (2) gaining an accurate understanding of the client's thoughts, feel-
ings, and behavior patterns; (3) helping clients to gain insight into their difficulties,
recognize unrealistic aspects of their thinking, and develop alternative perspectives
and new ways of thinking; (4) reducing levels of emotional distress and increasing feel-
ings of well-being; and (5) modifying dysfunctional behavior patterns. A number of
authors have suggested that, when used in a sensitive and empathic manner, humor
might be useful to further each of these therapeutic goals (Gelkopf and Kreitler, 1996;
Kuhlman, 1984; Pierce, 1994; Saper, 1987).
With regard to establishing rapport, it has been suggested that humor may be used
to put the client at ease and reduce tension, to make the therapist seem more human,
to increase the attractiveness of the therapist to the client, and to create a transitional
"play space" in which the therapist and client can engage in rewarding interchange
and shared reality (Gelkopf and Kreitler, 1996). Laughing together may promote feel-
ings of intimacy and friendliness and facilitate the client's trust in the therapist. A well-
timed humorous comment on the part of the therapist can often be a way of conveying
empathic understanding by succinctly encapsulating ironic aspects of a client's expe-
rience, evoking a chuckle of recognition from the client. By using mildly self-
deprecating humor or taking a humorous perspective on a potentially embarrassing
or threatening situation that arises in the course of therapy, the therapist can also serve
as a role model for the appropriate use of humor. For example, if a client criticizes or
complains to the therapist, a humorous rather than a defensive response from the
therapist can communicate that he or she remains hopeful and is not overwhelmed
by the client's criticism and problems (H. A. Olson, 1994).
Humor may also be a vehicle for helping the therapist to gain an accurate under-
standing of the client by paying close attention to the client's humor productions.
Research indicates that clients in psychotherapy are much more likely to initiate
humor than are therapists, and that both clients and therapists are more likely to laugh
in response to humorous comments made by the client than to therapist-initiated
humor (Marci et al., 2004). This client- genera ted humor may be a rich source of infor-
mation about the client's perceptions, attitudes, assumptions, and feelings. Clients'
HUMOR IN PSYCHOTHERAPY AND COUNSELING 343
humor may be used diagnostically as an indicator of their mental status and level of
functioning, as well as a way of assessing progress in therapy and the effectiveness of
particular interventions. For example, the presence or absence of humor may indicate
the degree to which a client is feeling some control over his or her problems or is
feeling overwhelmed. Clients' humor may also signal areas of conflict when the client
laughs spontaneously at things that do not at first appear to be amusing, or may indi-
cate issues of aggression or depression. Therapists should also be alert to the possi-
bility of countertransference feelings when they find themselves using humor
excessively or avoiding it altogether with particular clients (Gelkopf and Kreitler,
1996).
Since humor inherently involves the simultaneous perception of incongruous or
seemingly incompatible ideas or perspectives (i.e., bisociation), it also often occurs in
therapy in the context of helping the client to gain insight and alternative perspectives.
As clients begin to overcome rigid defenses, become more aware of unconscious
assumptions and attitudes, and gain new perspectives on their life situation, they often
experience an "aha" experience that strikes them as humorous and produces sponta-
neous laughter. When therapists join into this laughter, they celebrate these new
insights with their clients and further reinforce their new perspectives. In addition,
therapists can also often nudge clients toward these types of insights by gently using
humor to highlight the irrationality or absurdity of their assumptions and attitudes.
Such humor on the part of the therapist may also help clients to gain a sense of pro-
portion, recognizing that their problems are not as large as they seem. Appropriate
uses of humor by the therapist can also help clients to take a more tolerant view of
life, accepting their own imperfections as well as the limitations and uncertainties of
the world around them (Ellis, 1977).
Humor may also be helpful in therapy as a means of reducing emotional distress. As
noted in Chapter 9, a considerable amount of research indicates that humor functions
as an emotion regulation mechanism, reducing negative emotions such as depression,
anxiety, and hostility, and increasing positive moods. By modeling and encouraging a
humorous outlook, therapists can help clients to regulate their emotions.
Laughter may also play a role in helping clients to modify dysfunctional behavior
patterns. Shared laughter can be a form of positive reinforcement following desirable
behavior change, such as when a therapist and client laugh together following the
client's successful enactment of a new way of dealing assertively with a problematic
interpersonal situation. In helping clients to develop assertiveness and to find more
adaptive ways of coping with interpersonal problems, therapists can also teach them
methods of using humor as an effective social skill. In sum, humor seems to be an
important therapist communication skill which, when used judiciously, can help to
work toward the goals of therapy.
Research on Humor in the Therapeutic Process
Empirical investigations of the effects of humor as a therapist communication
skill are unfortunately quite limited, and the overall findings have not been very
APPLICATIONS OF HUMOR
promising. One approach to this type of research has been to ask participants to rate
their perceptions of simulated therapy sessions containing humorous and nonhumor-
ous interventions. In one study, adults who were currently in outpatient psychother-
apy were presented with a series of audio recordings of therapy sessions in which the
therapists either did or did not use humor in their responses to their clients (Rosen-
heim and Golan, 1986). The participants were asked to rate how helpful and under-
standing each therapist appeared to be and the degree to which they themselves would
be willing to be treated by the therapist. Contrary to predictions, the results revealed
that the nonhumorous interventions, as compared to the humorous ones, were rated
as being significantly more effective and were more strongly preferred by the therapy
clients.
Similar findings were reported in another study using the same methodology in
which the participants were schizophrenic patients in the early stages of remission
from an acute psychotic episode (Rosenheim, Tecucianu, and Dimitrovsky, 1989).
Once again, the results revealed a consistent preference for the nonhumorous over
the humorous interventions among all patients, regardless of age, gender, education,
and diagnosis (paranoid versus nonparanoid). In particular, patients rated the nonhu-
morous interactions as being more helpful, more likely to strengthen the therapeutic
relationship, and displaying more empathy and understanding. These findings suggest
that humorous interventions run the risk of not being well received by clients, and
underscore the need for care in their use.
In another study, university students were asked to rate one of three videotapes
of simulated counseling sessions containing no humor, facilitative (empathic and sup-
portive) humor, or nonfacilitative (mildly derisive or distracting) humor initiated by
the counselor (J. A. Foster and Reid, 1983). The results indicated that the counselor
was rated as more approachable and better able to create a positive relationship in
both the facilitative humor and no-humor conditions as compared to the nonfacilita-
tive humor condition, but no differences were found between the facilitative humor
and no-humor conditions. Moreover, no differences were found across all three
groups in ratings of the counselor's ability to help the client achieve greater self-
understanding. Overall, this study suggested that nonfacilitative humor might have
an adverse effect on some aspects of treatment, but facilitative humor does not seem
to show any greater therapeutic benefits compared to no humor at all.
Other studies have analyzed tape recordings of actual therapy sessions to examine
the effects of humorous therapist interventions on the ongoing therapy process. Clin-
ical psychologist Barbara Killinger (1987) studied tape recordings of 85 therapy ses-
sions involving different clients and therapists in two different university counseling
centers. Interestingly, no differences were found in the overall frequency of humor
initiated by novice versus more experienced therapists or during early versus later
therapy sessions. The effectiveness of the humorous interventions was examined by
comparing therapist-client interactions in which the therapist made a humorous
comment with randomly selected control interactions in which the therapist made a
nonhumorous comment. Trained judges rated the degree to which these therapist
statements facilitated subsequent client exploration and understanding and led to a
HUMOR IN PSYCHOTHERAPY AND COUNSELING 345
more positive attitude of the client toward the therapist. Overall, the results revealed
that the humorous therapist statements did not seem to produce any greater benefits
than did the nonhumorous control statements. On the contrary, those humorous
comments that elicited laughter in clients were actually judged to produce signifi-
cantly less client exploration and understanding as compared to nonhumorous
statements.
Further analyses of the types of humor used by therapists in this study revealed
that about 20 percent of the humor instances could be categorized as aggressive (supe-
riority or ridicule). Although clients typically responded somewhat negatively to this
type of humor, therapists were generally able to mitigate any lasting negative conse-
quences through the immediate use of a "recovery statement," which softened the
humor in some way. Nonetheless, this typically led to a shift away from the current
topic of discussion and an interruption of client self-exploration. In sum, this study
further highlighted potential risks of the use of humor by therapists and the need for
caution.
A similar method was used by Patrick Peterson and Howard Pollio (1982) to study
therapeutic effects of client-initiated humor in group rather than individual therapy.
Analyzing video recordings of five sessions of a single therapy group, they found that
over 75 percent of the humor generated by group members was negatively targeted
toward another group member or someone outside the group, while only seven
percent involved positive remarks of any sort. Analyses of the immediate effects of
laughter on the therapeutic climate of the group revealed that laughter in response
to humor directed at another group member led to a significant reduction in thera-
peutic effectiveness, whereas laughter at humor targeting generalized others outside
the group led to an increase in effectiveness. Qualitative analyses indicated that most
of the humor targeting other group members appeared to be a means of diverting
group discussion away from the current topic of conversation, whereas humor tar-
geting generalized others seemed to be a method of offering support and promoting
group feeling.
Jacob Megdell (1984) examined the effects of therapist-initiated humor on clients'
feelings of attraction or liking for the therapist during individual counseling sessions
taking place at two alcoholism treatment centers. After the sessions, videotapes of the
sessions were reviewed by the counselor and the client separately, and continuous
ratings were made of each individual's perceptions of therapist-initiated humor. The
clients also made continuous ratings of their feelings toward the therapist during the
session. The results revealed that client liking of the therapists tended to increase
significantly following segments that were perceived as being humorous by both the
therapist and the client, but not following humor that was perceived as funny by only
one of them. These findings suggest a potential benefit of humor, but only when it is
enjoyed by both the client and the therapist together.
Some other studies that may be relevant to psychotherapy have examined the
effects of humor in physician-patient interactions. In one of these, researchers ana-
lyzed audiotapes of interactions between primary care physicians and their patients
during routine office visits, in order to identify interpersonal behavior patterns that
APPLICATIONS OF HUMOR
might differentiate between physicians who had had two or more malpractice insur-
ance claims against them and those who had none (Levinson et al., 1997). Besides
using more facilitation comments (e.g., informing patients about what to expect, solic-
iting their opinions, checking on their understanding), physicians with no malprac-
tice claims were found to laugh more frequently and to use more humor in their
interactions with their patients.
In another study, various types of humor initiated by physicians and patients were
examined in audiotapes of physician-patient visits that were given either very high
or very low satisfaction ratings by the patients following the sessions (Sala, Krupat,
and Roter, 2002). The results revealed that high-satisfaction as compared to low-
satisfaction visits were characterized by significantly more frequent physician use of
positive types of humor (e.g., playful, light humor expressing caring, support, and
warmth, and relieving tension), but did not differ in physician use of negative types
of humor (e.g., humor putting down self, patient, or others), which in any case
occurred extremely rarely. With regard to patient-initiated humor, during high-
satisfaction visits the patients were significantly more likely to engage in lighthearted,
tension-relieving humor and less likely to engage in humor that disparaged them-
selves or the physician. The patients were also much more likely to laugh at the physi-
cians' humorous comments during high-satisfaction as compared to low-satisfaction
visits. Since this study did not involve an experimental manipulation, it is impossible
to determine whether positive humorous interactions between physicians and patients
were a cause or merely a concomitant of patients' feelings of satisfaction.
In summary, research on the effects of humor on the therapeutic process has been
quite limited, with mixed results. Some studies have suggested that humorous inter-
ventions may be less helpful than nonhumorous ones, others have shown no differ-
ence in effectiveness, and still others have indicated some therapeutic benefits of
humor. These contradictory findings may be due to the fact that different types or
uses of humor can have quite different effects in therapy. Although some researchers
made an effort to distinguish between positive and negative types of humor, these
past studies may not have succeeded in identifying the crucial differences between
therapeutic and nontherapeutic forms of humor. More carefully refined research is
needed to investigate in more detail the potential benefits and risks of different
types of humor in therapy. In view of the ubiquity of humor and laughter in therapy,
and the many seemingly plausible hypotheses concerning its potential benefits (as
well as its potential risks), this is clearly a research topic that merits farther
attention.
Risks of Humor in Therapy
Although humor may potentially be beneficial for therapy, many clinicians have
also pointed out that it has some inherent risks. As we have seen in previous chap-
ters, humor may be used for many different purposes in everyday social interactions,
including such negative uses as disparagement and ridicule, enforcing conformity to
social norms, and avoiding dealing with problems. Even though most therapists are
HUMOR IN PSYCHOTHERAPY AND COUNSELING 34
careful to avoid using humor in these ways, there is a risk that their humor may be
misunderstood by clients and misperceived as coercive or aggressive. Since humor is
inherently ambiguous, there is always a possibility of misunderstanding. Therapists
therefore need to be alert to the way their humorous comments are perceived by
clients and how they affect their feelings and perceptions.
In a frequently cited article, Lawrence Kubie (1970), a psychoanalytically
oriented therapist, expressed particularly strong reservations about the use of humor
in psychotherapy, pointing out a number of potential risks. He noted that therapists'
use of humor may convey to clients that they do not take their problems very seri-
ously. If therapists have to explain that something they said was only intended as a
joke, this is an indication that the humor was likely used inappropriately and insensi-
tively, since the client's failure to recognize it as humor indicates a lack of therapist
attunement to the client's feelings and needs. Kubie also argued that humor is some-
times used inappropriately by therapists as a defense against their own anxieties or as
a way of narcissistically showing off their own wittiness. When used by clients, humor
may also be an unhealthy defense mechanism, a way of avoiding dealing with prob-
lems, or a means of devaluing their own strengths and characteristics in a self-mocking
way (i.e., self-defeating humor). In addition, clients may have a maladaptive aggres-
sive humor style. By engaging in humorous interactions with these sorts of clients,
the therapist may inadvertently reinforce an unhealthy style of humor.
Another risk of humor, according to Kubie, is that when the therapist treats
certain topics in a humorous manner, the client may take this to mean that these topics
are taboo and are not to be discussed seriously. In addition, clients may feel a need to
laugh along with a therapist to show that they have a "good sense of humor," even
when this superficial joviality covers underlying feelings of distress or resentment. The
use of humor by the therapist may thus make it difficult for the client to express neg-
ative feelings or disagreement. Kubie (1970) concluded his article by stating, "Humor
has its place in life. Let us keep it there by acknowledging that one place where it has
a very limited role, if any, is in psychotherapy" (p. 866).
Although few clinicians writing on this topic have taken such an extreme view as
Kubie, most seem to agree that there is some validity to his arguments. Just as they
need to monitor carefully the impact of all their communications in therapy, clini-
cians need to be especially alert to the effects of their humor on their clients. However,
this does not mean that therapy should always be serious and devoid of humor. Taking
a more moderate approach, Thomas Kuhlman (1984) suggested a number of poten-
tial benefits of humor, but also pointed out that when a client is struggling emotion-
ally with an issue, humor can be inappropriate if it diverts the client's attention away
from the problem rather than facilitating the ongoing processing of information.
Similarly, Robert Pierce (1994) suggested that, although it can often be beneficial,
humor is inappropriate in therapy (1) when it is used to belittle, laugh at, or mimic
the client; (2) when it is used defensively to divert attention away from an emotion-
ally charged problem onto safer topics; and (3) when it is irrelevant to the therapeu-
tic purpose, gratifying the therapist's own need for amusement and wasting valuable
therapy time and energy.
APPLICATIONS OF HUMOR
Waleed Salameh (1987) developed a five-point rating scale for evaluating the
appropriateness of therapists' use of humor in therapy sessions. Level 1 refers to
destructive uses of humor, such as sarcastic and vindictive humor that elicits feelings of
hurt and distrust in clients. Level 2 is harmful humor, which includes humor that is
irrelevant or not attuned to clients' needs. This would include uses of humor where
the therapist subsequently has to retract it or make amends by reassuring the client
that it was not intended seriously. Level 3 refers to minimally helpful humor, which pro-
motes a positive therapist-client interaction, but remains mostly a response to the
client's own humor rather than being initiated by the therapist. Level 4 is described
as very helpful humor that is initiated by the therapist and is attuned to the client's
needs, facilitating self-exploration and self-understanding. Finally, Level 5 refers to
outstandingly helpful humor that conveys a deep understanding of the client, is sponta-
neous and well-timed, and accelerates the process of client growth and change.
Although the reliability and validity of this rating scale still need to be evaluated, it
might be a useful tool for researchers wishing to investigate therapeutic humor, as
well as for supervisors to evaluate the use of humor by therapists in training.
Therapists need to be especially careful in using humor with clients who have
particular humor-related difficulties. Willibald Ruch and Rene Proyer (in press) have
coined the term "gelatophobia" to refer to a psychological disorder characterized by
a morbid fear of being laughed at and not taken seriously. They created a reliable self-
report scale to assess this trait, which is thought to develop from repeated experiences
of being the object of ridicule and mockery early in life. Investigations using this
measure have demonstrated that clinically identified gelatophobic individuals could
be reliably distinguished from patients with other types of social anxiety and depres-
sive disorders as well as nonclinical control subjects.
The study found that people with gelatophobia are fearful of exposing themselves
to others lest they be laughed at, tend to be socially avoidant and anxious, and have
high levels of neuroticism and introversion and low self-esteem. They have great dif-
ficulty enjoying any kinds of humor in their social interactions, since they are always
suspicious that others are laughing at their expense. Clearly, the use of humor in
therapy with such individuals is fraught with difficulties, and needs to be approached
with great sensitivity to avoid retraumatizing the client. Indeed, one of the goals of
therapy in such cases might be to help clients gradually to overcome their aversion
to humor by means of techniques that have been developed for treating other types
of phobias.
A very different type of humor-related difficulty is seen in clients who use humor
excessively as a way of trivializing their problems and avoiding dealing with difficul-
ties. Psychiatrist Ned Marcus (1990) described certain types of therapy clients who
engage in a pathological form of humor during therapy, treating their psychological
problems and the therapeutic process itself as "all one big joke." Such uses of humor
may be accompanied by other avoidant behaviors, such as frequently arriving late for
sessions, failing to complete homework assignments, and generally devaluing the ther-
apeutic process. In treating these clients, the therapist needs to be careful not to join
into the humor and thereby reinforce the avoidant behavior. Marcus advocated the
use of cognitive therapy techniques to help these clients become aware of the
HUMOR IN EDUCATION
dysfunctional automatic thoughts underlying their humor (e.g., unaccountability,
incongruity, inconsequentiality), and to encourage them to gain a more realistic per-
spective. The goal here is not to eliminate the client's sense of humor, but to make it
more integrated with reality and therefore healthier.
Conclusion
There appears to be a growing interest among many psychotherapists and coun-
selors in the potential role of humor in treatment. Clinicians who have written on this
topic have ranged from those who enthusiastically advocate humor as a highly bene-
ficial component of therapy, to those who express a more cautious and balanced
approach, to those who perceive the risks of humor in therapy as far outweighing any
potential benefits. The existence of such strongly opposing views suggests that the
truth likely lies somewhere in the middle. As we have seen throughout this book,
humor may be viewed as a form of interpersonal communication that can be used in
therapy, just as in other social relationships, for a variety of purposes, both prosocial
and aggressive.
Not surprisingly, humor occurs quite frequently in psychotherapy, just as it does
in all sorts of interpersonal interactions. Like any type of communication, it can be
used effectively or ineffectively in therapy. On one hand, it can be used empathically
and in a caring and genuine manner to foster the therapeutic relationship and to
encourage client self-exploration, insight, and change. On the other hand, it can be
used inappropriately, either in an extreme way by denigrating the client to further
the therapist's own needs at the client's expense, or in a more mild way by distracting
from and interfering with the therapeutic process. Thus, the ability to use humor
effectively and appropriately seems to be best viewed as a type of social competence
(Yip and Martin, in press) that novice therapists naturally possess to varying degrees.
The ability to use humor therapeutically is a skill that needs to be developed and
honed by therapists in training, just as they need to learn a variety of other clinical
skills.
Most of the existing literature on humor in therapy is based on case examples and
clinical impressions. In recent years, there is growing recognition of the importance
of evidence-based approaches to therapy, and the need for clinicians to employ treat-
ment interventions that have demonstrated effectiveness. Unfortunately, apart from a
few therapy outcome and process studies, there is currently little empirical research
examining the effectiveness of humor-based interventions or the types of humor that
may be appropriate or inappropriate for therapy. Further research is clearly needed
to investigate which uses of humor may be beneficial or detrimental in treating which
sorts of problems with which types of clients.
HUMOR IN EDUCATION
Although education was traditionally seen as a rather serious and solemn under-
taking, pedagogical trends in recent decades have shifted toward the promotion of a
APPLICATIONS OF HUMOR
more relaxed learning environment and an emphasis on "making learning fun." The
current prevailing philosophy of education argues that students are much more likely
to be motivated to learn and to retain information if they are happy and amused than
if they are feeling anxious and threatened (Oppliger, 2003). Consistent with this trend,
many educators in recent years have recommended that teachers introduce humor
into the classroom by sprinkling funny anecdotes, examples, and illustrations through-
out their lessons, displaying comical images and sayings on the classroom walls, and
encouraging frequent humor production in their students.
A number of popular books and articles in education journals written by teach-
ers and educational experts have touted humor as a very useful and effective teaching
tool with a wide range of benefits (e.g., Cornett, 1986; Struthers, 2003; Tamblyn,
2003). One author described humor as one of the teacher's "most powerful instruc-
tional resources" and claimed that it can be used for such diverse purposes as cor-
recting reading difficulties, controlling behavioral problems, building vocabulary,
teaching foreign languages, and integrating students who are socially isolated
(Cornett, 1986, p. 8).
In general, it has been suggested that humor in the classroom helps to reduce
tension, stress, anxiety, and boredom; enhances student-teacher relationships; makes
the classroom less threatening for students; makes learning enjoyable, creating posi-
tive attitudes toward learning; stimulates interest in and attention to educational mes-
sages; increases comprehension, cognitive retention, and performance; and promotes
creativity and divergent thinking (R. A. Berk and Nanda, 1998; A. P. Davies and Apter,
1980; Ziegler, Boardman, and Thomas, 1985). The use of humor has been seen as an
especially useful tool in teaching students about sensitive, anxiety-arousing topics such
as death and suicide (H. A. Johnson, 1990), and in teaching courses that are typically
associated with negative attitudes and anxiety, such as undergraduate statistics (R. A.
Berk and Nanda, 1998). Based on the presumed cognitive, emotional, social, and phys-
iological benefits of humor, some educators have even suggested that one of the goals
of education should be to facilitate the development of a good sense of humor in
students (Bernstein, 1986; Masselos, 2003).
Most of these enthusiastic endorsements of humor are based on anecdotal evi-
dence and teachers' reports of their own experiences in the classroom. Empirical
research evaluating the claimed educational benefits of humor is unfortunately quite
limited, much of it is over two decades old, little replication has taken place, and the
findings have been rather mixed (Teslow, 1995). Nonetheless, there is some research
on humor in education addressing the following questions: (1) How often and in what
ways do teachers typically use humor in the classroom? (2) Does humor improve the
classroom environment and make learning more enjoyable for students? (3) Does
humor in teaching improve students' ability to learn and retain information? (4) Does
the inclusion of humor in tests and exams help to reduce test anxiety and improve
student performance on the tests? and (5) Does humor in textbooks help to make
them more understandable and improve students' ability to learn the material? In the
following sections I will review research findings addressing each of these questions,
followed by some general caveats concerning the use of humor in education (for more
HUMOR IN EDUCATION
detailed reviews of research in this area, see Bryant and Zillmann, 1989; Oppliger,
2003; Teslow, 1995).
Descriptive Studies of Teachers' Use of Humor in the Classroom
Evidence from several studies indicates that many teachers tend to use humor
quite frequently in classroom settings. For example, an analysis of tape recordings of
typical lectures by university professors found an average of a little over three instances
of humor per 50-minute class (Bryant et al., 1980). Similar rates of humor have also
been found among high school and elementary school teachers (Bryant and Zillmann,
1989; Gorham and Christophel, 1990; Neuliep, 1991). There is some evidence that
male teachers tend to use humor in the classroom more frequently than do female
teachers, although this sex difference appears to have diminished over the past 20
years (Bryant et al., 1980; Gorham and Christophel, 1990; Neuliep, 1991; Van Giffen,
1990).
What kinds of humor do teachers use? Although most educational experts rec-
ommend that teachers avoid the use of teasing and ridicule, there is evidence that
aggressive forms of humor are actually fairly common in the classroom. In a study by
Joan Gorham and Diane Christophel (1990), college students were asked to write brief
descriptions of all humorous comments made by instructors during classes. Analyses
of these humor descriptions indicated that over half of all instances of humor by the
college instructors could be categorized as "tendentious" or aggressive, in that they
involved poking fun at a person, a group of people, or an institution. As many as 20
percent of all humorous comments by instructors made fun of an individual student
in the classroom or the class as a whole, while other tendentious humor targeted the
topic or subject of the course, the instructor's academic department, the university,
the state, or famous people at the national or international level. About 12 percent of
the humor was targeted at the instructors themselves, in what might be described
as self-deprecating or perhaps self-defeating humor. Less than half of the college in-
structors' humor did not have an obvious target. These nontendentious forms
of humor included either personal or general anecdotes and stories that were either
related or unrelated to the subject of the lecture, "canned" jokes, and physical or vocal
comedy ("schtick"). In all, only about 30 percent of the humor was related to the
lecture topic.
In another study, James Neuliep (1991) conducted a large-scale survey of high
school teachers about their use of humor. The respondents were asked to describe in
some detail the most recent situation in which they had used humor in the classroom.
Responses to this question were used by the researcher to develop a taxonomy of
teachers' humor, which contained the following categories: (1) teacher-directed
humor (e.g., self-deprecation, describing an embarrassing personal experience); (2)
student-targeted humor (e.g., joking insult, teasing a student about a mistake); (3)
untargeted humor (e.g., pointing out incongruities, joke-telling, punning, tongue-in-
cheek or facetious interactions, humorous exaggeration); (4) external source humor
(e.g., relating a humorous historical incident, showing a cartoon that is related or
APPLICATIONS OF HUMOR
unrelated to the subject, humorous demonstrations of natural phenomena); and (5)
nonverbal humor (e.g., making a funny face, humorous vocal style, physical bodily
humor). Although teachers seemed to be generally aware of the potential risks of using
overly aggressive forms of humor directed at students, humor involving teasing,
insults, and joking about students' mistakes still accounted for more than 10 percent
of their overall humor.
In summary, teachers appear to use humor in a wide variety of ways, including
some that appear rather aggressive, such as teasing and playful put-downs of students.
While much of their humor appears to be used to illustrate a pedagogical point, to
make a lesson more vivid and memorable, or simply to add some levity and playful
fun to the learning environment, teachers also appear to use humor for the same sorts
of purposes for which humor is used in other interpersonal contexts. As noted in
Chapter 5, humor serves a variety of social communication functions (e.g., social
probing, enforcing social norms and control, status and hierarchy maintenance, etc.),
and teachers use humor in their interactions with students for many of these purposes,
just as they do in their interactions with other people.
Teachers' Use of Humor and the Classroom Environment
Does humor improve the classroom environment and make learning more enjoy-
able? Research on this question has provided a fair amount of evidence that the judi-
cious use of humor by teachers in the classroom increases students' enjoyment of
learning, their perceptions of how much they learn, and how positively they feel about
the course and the instructor (e.g., Wanzer and Frymier, 1999). Indeed, teachers with
a good sense of humor tend to be especially popular with their students (see Figure
8). Student surveys have found that a sense of humor is typically rated as one of the
most desirable characteristics of an effective teacher (Check, 1986; Fortson and
Brown, 1998; Powell and Andresen, 1985).
Other research has shown that teachers who are observed to use more humor in
the classroom are rated more positively by their students. One study employing tape
recordings of classroom lectures to evaluate the frequency of humor used by college
instructors found that teachers who told more funny stories and jokes in the class-
room received more positive overall evaluations from their students, and were rated
as being more effective and appealing and having a better delivery, but were not
necessarily seen as being more competent or intelligent (Bryant et al., 1980).
Other research indicates, however, that some types of humor used by the teacher
may have a negative rather than a positive impact on student evaluations. For example,
Gorham and Christophel (1990) found that, whereas a greater proportion of humor-
ous anecdotes and stories in college instructors' humor was positively associated with
students' perceptions of how much they learned in the course and their positive atti-
tudes toward the instructor and the course, a greater proportion of tendentious or
aggressive humor was associated with less positive evaluations by students.
Some early research suggested that these effects of humor use on student
appraisals occurred primarily for male instructors, whereas for female teachers humor
HUMOR IN EDUCATION
FIGURE 8 Teachers' use of humor in the classroom contributes to greater immediacy.
© David Buffington/Getty Images/PhotoDisc
did not appear to have much of an effect one way or the other (Bryant et al., 1980).
However, more recent research suggests that this gender difference may have disap-
peared, perhaps due to changes in sex role expectations in the general culture. Gorham
and Christophel (1990) found significant correlations between instructors' humor use
and positive student evaluations for female as well as male teachers, although the
effects were still somewhat stronger for males. In contrast, Katherine Van Giffen
(1990) found that college students' ratings of the degree to which an instructor used
humor were more strongly predictive of teacher evaluations for female than for male
instructors.
The value of humor in the classroom may be particularly related to its role in
promoting a sense of immediacy. Immediacy is an educational concept referring to
the degree to which the teacher makes a close personal connection with students, as
opposed to remaining distant and aloof (Andersen, 1979). It has been found to be
enhanced by such teacher behaviors as using personal examples from one's own life,
encouraging students to enter into discussions in class, addressing students by name,
praising students' work, and looking and smiling at the class while speaking. Past
research has indicated that greater levels of immediacy are associated with more pos-
itive student attitudes toward the class and instructor, greater enjoyment and motiva-
tion, and greater perceived learning (Andersen, 1979; Gorham, 1988; D. H. Kelley
and Gorham, 1988). Humor may be another method for instructors to reduce the
psychological distance between themselves and their students, and thereby increase
the level of immediacy.
In the study by Gorham and Christophel (1990) mentioned earlier, college
students were asked to observe and record instances of humor by professors during
lectures, as well as completing a measure of the degree to which these instructors
APPLICATIONS OF HUMOR
engaged in a variety of verbal and nonverbal immediacy behaviors. The results
revealed significant positive correlations between the frequency of positive types of
humor observed in the lectures and the instructors' overall verbal and nonverbal
immediacy. More specifically, teachers with higher overall immediacy told propor-
tionately more humorous anecdotes and stories and exhibited more physical/vocal
comedy; however, they also used less tendentious (aggressive) and self-deprecating
(likely self-defeating) humor. Interestingly, no differences were found in the degree
to which the humor used by teachers with high versus low immediacy was related to
the lecture topic or course content.
Melissa Wanzer and Ann Frymier (1999) also found that college students' ratings
of the degree to which particular professors engaged in humor were positively asso-
ciated with measures of the instructors' immediacy and responsiveness to students. In
addition, analyses revealed that the significant associations found between instructors'
humor and students' course evaluations and perceptions of learning were largely (but
not entirely) accounted for by immediacy. Thus, humor seems to be one component
of a broader set of teacher behaviors that contribute to a sense of immediacy in the
classroom, which in turn results in more positive teacher and course evaluations and
greater perceived learning in the students.
Teachers' Use of Humor and Students' Learning
Educators advocating the use of humor in teaching have claimed that humor not
only promotes a positive, enjoyable atmosphere in the classroom but also helps stu-
dents to learn and retain information better, leading to higher levels of academic
performance. Several mechanisms have been proposed to explain why lecture mate-
rial that is accompanied by humor might be learned and remembered better than
information that is presented in a more serious manner (Oppliger, 2003; Teslow,
1995). First, the positive emotion accompanying humor (i.e., mirth) may become asso-
ciated with the overall learning experience, giving students a more positive attitude
toward education in general and increasing their motivation to learn, resulting in
higher academic achievement. Second, the novelty and emotionally arousing proper-
ties of humor may help to attract and sustain students' attention onto the lesson, thus
facilitating acquisition of information. Third, the incongruous mental associations
that are an inherent characteristic of humor may facilitate the process of cognitive
elaboration, helping in the storage and retention of information in long-term memory.
Finally, humorous memory cues associated with previously learned information may
facilitate the retrieval of this information from long-term memory at a later date when
students are answering questions on a test or examination.
Early studies investigating children's attention to humorous educational televi-
sion programs have provided some evidence of the hypothesized attention-drawing
effects of humor, at least in young children. For example, one study found that, when
given a choice of educational television programs to watch, first- and second-grade
children were more likely to select those containing humor, especially if the humor
was fast-paced (Wakshlag, Day, and Zillmann, 1981). Similar findings were obtained
HUMOR IN EDUCATION
by Dolf Zillmann and his colleagues (1980), who concluded that "the educator who
deals with an audience whose attentiveness is below the level necessary for effective
communication should indeed benefit from employing humor early on and in
frequent short bursts" (p. 178).
Beyond the attention-grabbing effects of humor, a number of studies over the
years have investigated the question of whether information that is taught in a humor-
ous way is learned and remembered better than information that is presented in a
more serious manner. The results of early educational research on this topic were
quite disappointing. Charles Gruner (1976) reviewed nine such studies and concluded
that all except one failed to show any influence of humor on learning. Outside of the
educational context, early research on the effects of humor on memory for speeches
also generally found no differences in learning between humorous and serious
speeches (Gruner, 1967).
A few later educational studies showed more promising results, although the
findings across studies continued to be mixed. For example, Ann Davies and Michael
Apter (1980) randomly assigned children between the ages of 8 and 1 1 to view either
humorous or nonhumorous versions of several 20-minute audio-visual educational
programs on topics such as language, science, history, and geography. The humorous
versions of the programs were identical to the nonhumorous versions except for the
random insertion of a number of funny cartoons. In support of the hypothesis that
humor enhances learning, testing revealed that the children in the humorous condi-
tion recalled a significantly greater amount of information from these presentations
than did those in the nonhumorous condition, both immediately after the presenta-
tions and at one-month follow-up, although this difference in memory retention was
no longer apparent nine months later.
The strongest evidence for beneficial effects of humor on learning in an educa-
tional context comes from two naturalistic experiments conducted by Avner Ziv
(1988b). Criticizing earlier laboratory studies for their methodological flaws, artifi-
ciality, lack of ecological validity, and short duration, Ziv examined the effects of
humorous lectures on student performance in an actual course over a whole semes-
ter. In the first experiment, students in an introductory statistics course were randomly
assigned to receive the same 14- week course from the same instructor in either a
humorous or a nonhumorous condition. In the humorous condition, the instructor,
who had received training on the effective use of humor in education, inserted three
or four funny anecdotes, jokes, or cartoons into each lecture to illustrate key concepts.
Thus, humor was used as a sort of mnemonic device, or memory aid, to help students
remember important points. The nonhumorous condition contained the same course
material without the humorous illustrations. At the end of the semester, analyses of
the students' grades on the final exam revealed that those in the humor condition
obtained significantly higher average grades, with a difference of nearly 10 percent-
age points being found between the two groups.
These remarkable findings were replicated by Ziv in a second experiment using
two classes of female students taking an introductory psychology course in a teach-
ers' college. Once again, students in the humorous condition achieved an average
APPLICATIONS OF HUMOR
grade that was about 10 percentage points higher than that obtained by those in the
nonhumorous condition, using the same multiple-choice final exam. In his discussion
of these results, Ziv argued that the stronger findings of these two experiments, com-
pared with the generally disappointing earlier educational research on this topic, may
have been due to the fact that the humor was directly relevant to the course material,
it was limited to only a few instances per lecture hour, and the teachers were trained
in its effective use.
Ziv's conclusions appear to be generally supported by several more recent
carefully-controlled laboratory studies on the effects of humor on memory (Derks,
Gardner et al., 1998; Schmidt, 1994, 2002; Schmidt and Williams, 2001). As noted in
the review of this research in Chapter 4, these experiments provide quite consistent
evidence that humorous information is recalled better than nonhumorous information
when both are presented in the same context. If only humorous material is presented,
however, there is no apparent benefit for memory. Moreover, it is important to note
that the enhanced recall of humorous material occurs at the expense of memory for
any nonhumorous material that is presented at the same time. In other words, the
inclusion of humorous illustrations in a lecture may enhance students' memory
for the humorous material, but it might also diminish their memory for other
information in the same lecture that is not accompanied by humor.
These findings suggest that, if teachers wish to use humor to facilitate students'
learning of course material, they should ensure that the humor is closely tied to the
course content. In addition, the constant use of humor throughout a lesson will have
little effect on retention. Instead, humor should be used somewhat sparingly to illus-
trate important concepts and not peripheral material.
Effects of Humor in Tests and Exams
Do students perform better on examinations containing some humorous ques-
tions as compared to exams with no humor? Some authors have suggested that the
inclusion of humorous questions in examinations may help to reduce test anxiety and
consequently lead to improved performance. A number of studies have investigated
this hypothesis by examining test scores when students are randomly assigned to
receive either humorous or nonhumorous versions of the same multiple-choice tests
(e.g., Deffenbacher, Deitz, and Hazaleus, 1981; McMorris, Urbach, and Connor,
1985; Townsend and Mahoney, 1981; Townsend, Mahoney, and Allen, 1983). In this
research, humorous versions of the tests are typically created by modifying several of
the questions so that they contain either a funny "stem" or an amusing response
option. Several of these studies looked at tests in university psychology classes, while
others used English grammar or mathematics tests with elementary school children
ranging from third to eighth grade.
The results of this research have generally been quite disappointing. A review of
1 1 studies of this type concluded that there is no convincing evidence that humorous
tests lead to better overall performance than do nonhumorous tests (McMorris,
Boothroyd, and Pietrangelo, 1997). In fact, the only clearly significant main effect
HUMOR IN EDUCATION
indicated poorer performance among students receiving the humorous version of a
test. Most of these studies also examined potential moderating effects of trait anxiety,
hypothesizing that humorous tests may be most effective in increasing the perfor-
mance of highly anxious students but less effective for students who were low on
anxiety. However, these results were decidedly mixed. Only one study showed a sig-
nificant interaction in the predicted direction, with a humorous version of an exam
boosting the performance of highly anxious students but not those low on anxiety
(R. E. Smith et al., 1971). In contrast, a few studies found die opposite pattern, with
high-anxious students scoring better on the nonhumorous test and low-anxious stu-
dents scoring better on the humorous one (e.g., Townsend and Mahoney, 1981). Yet
other studies found no significant interaction at all between anxiety level and humor
intervention in the prediction of test scores (e.g., Deffenbacher et al., 1981).
One important variable may be whether or not the students actually find the
humorous items to be funny. Some students may not understand the humor, may not
think it is particularly amusing, or may even find these items to be annoying, perhaps
interfering with performance. Only one study asked students in the humorous exam
condition to rate the funniness of the items. This study produced a significant inter-
action, with students who rated the test as funny having significantly higher scores on
the test than did those who did not find it funny (McMorris et al., 1997). Although
this finding needs to be replicated, it suggests that teachers wishing to use humorous
exam items should be careful to ensure that the humor is understandable and enjoy-
able to the students.
Although there is little evidence that humorous test items improve students'
actual performance on a test, findings from these studies do suggest that students gen-
erally respond favorably to tests that include some humorous items. When asked about
their reactions to the humorous versions of the tests, the vast majority of students
perceived them to be enjoyable and helpful rather than detrimental to their per-
formance. In their review of this literature, McMorris and colleagues (1997) con-
cluded that, although there is no evidence that humor in tests either helps or hinders
students' performance, the judicious use of humor may be beneficial in malting exams
more enjoyable to the students. They noted, though, that it is important to ensure
that the humor is positive, constructive, and appropriate for the students.
Effects of Humor in Textbooks
Many high school and college textbooks contain funny cartoons and other humor-
ous materials to illustrate the information in the text. Does the inclusion of this sort
of humor actually help students to learn the material better? In one study designed
to investigate this question, students were randomly assigned to read different ver-
sions of a draft chapter of a college textbook containing either no humor, moderate
amounts of humor, or extensive humor in the form of cartoons illustrating points in
the text (Bryant et al., 1981). No differences were found across the three humor con-
ditions on a subsequent test of recall of information from the chapter, suggesting that
the presence of humorous cartoons had no effect on learning. However, the humor
APPLICATIONS OF HUMOR
did apparently have some influence on the participants' enjoyment and perceptions
of the chapters. In particular, humorous as compared to nonhumorous versions were
rated as more enjoyable, but they were also rated as less persuasive and showing less
author credibility. On the other hand, the amount of humor did not affect students'
ratings of interest, likelihood of reading more of the book, or likelihood of taking a
course with this book as the text.
In another study, college students were asked to rate a randomly assigned chapter
from an introductory psychology textbook on a number of dimensions such as level
of interest, enjoyableness, persuasiveness, and so on (D. M. Klein, Bryant, and
Zillmann, 1982). The chapters were then analyzed by the researchers for the amount
of humor they contained. Correlational analyses revealed that textbooks containing
more humor tended to be rated by the students as more enjoyable, but the amount
of humor was unrelated to ratings of interest, persuasiveness, capacity for learning, or
desire to read more on the topic. Although research on this topic is quite limited, the
overall findings suggest that humor in textbooks may be useful for boosting student
appeal (and perhaps increasing the likelihood of adoption by course instructors), but
it does not seem to improve students' ability to learn the information or their
perceptions of the credibility of the book.
Caveats in the Use of Humor in Education
Most educators who advocate the use of humor in teaching are careful to note
that aggressive forms of humor such as sarcasm, ridicule, and put-down humor have
no place in the classroom. Nonetheless, as Jennings Bryant and Dolf Zillmann (1989)
pointed out, research indicates that many teachers actually use hostile forms of humor
with their students, including ridicule, sarcasm, and teasing. These types of humor
may be perceived by some teachers as a potent method of correcting undesirable
behavior in their students such as tardiness, inattention, failure to complete assign-
ments, disruptive behavior, and so on. By teasing or ridiculing a student, teachers may
feel that they can correct individual students as well as setting an example for the rest
of the class. Indeed, research evidence suggests that these techniques may be quite
effective as behavioral deterrents, since observing another person being ridiculed can
have a powerful inhibiting effect on children's behavior by the time they reach six
years of age (Bryant et al., 1983).
However, there is also abundant evidence that ridicule and other forms of aggres-
sive humor can have a detrimental effect on the overall emotional climate of a class-
room. For example, in a study discussed in Chapter 5, college students who observed
another person being ridiculed became more inhibited, more conforming and fearful
of failure, and less willing to take risks (Janes and Olson, 2000). The research by
Gorham and Christophel (1990) discussed earlier also indicates that teachers who use
more aggressive forms of humor in the classroom are evaluated more negatively by
their students. Clearly, the use of humor to poke fun at students for their ineptness,
slowness to learn, ignorance, or inappropriate behavior can be damaging, creating an
atmosphere of tension and anxiety, and stifling creativity.
HUMOR IN EDUCATION
Another potential risk of humor in education, particularly with younger children,
is that it might be misunderstood and lead to confusion (Bryant and Zillmann, 1989).
Humor often involves exaggeration, understatement, distortion, and even contra-
diction (e.g., in irony). These types of humor might inadvertently cause students
to fail to understand the intended meaning and to learn inaccurate information.
Because of the novelty of the images that such distorting humor can convey, such
inaccuracies may also be particularly easy to remember and especially resistant to
memory decay.
These potential risks of humor with primary school children are supported by
two studies finding that educational television programs containing humorous exag-
geration or irony led to distortions in children's memory for the information being
taught (J. Weaver, Zillmann, and Bryant, 1988; Zillmann et al., 1984). These
memory-distorting effects of humor were found in children from kindergarten to
grade four. Interestingly, even when the researchers added statements that identified
and corrected the factual distortions introduced by the humor, this was not enough
to overcome the distorting effects of humor on children's recall. The authors of these
studies concluded that the vividness of the humorous images was recalled and not the
verbal corrections. Thus, teachers of young children who use humor need to be careful
to ensure that their humorous statements are not misunderstood.
Conclusion
As with humor in psychotherapy and, indeed, in all types of social interactions,
the role of humor in education turns out to be more complex than it might first appear.
Consistent with our conclusions about humor in psychotherapy, humor seems to be
best viewed as a form of interpersonal communication that can be used for a variety
of purposes in teaching. Humor may be used by teachers in potentially beneficial ways
to illustrate pedagogical points, to make lessons more vivid and memorable, and to
make the learning environment generally more enjoyable and interesting for students.
On the other hand, it may be used in more negative ways that are coercive or demean-
ing to students, and it can distract students' attention away from more important
points or distort their understanding of the information. As Bryant and Zillmann
(1989) observed, success in teaching with humor "depends on employing the right
type of humor, under the proper conditions, at the right time, and with properly moti-
vated and receptive students" (p. 74).
Although empirical research on the effects of humor in education has been quite
limited and the findings have been somewhat inconsistent, the existing research does
suggest that appropriate uses of humor by teachers in the classroom are associated
with more positive teacher evaluations, greater enjoyment of the course, and greater
perceived learning by the students. However, the use of aggressive types of humor is
associated with more negative student evaluations. The judicious use of humor seems
to be particularly beneficial in increasing the level of immediacy in the classroom,
reducing the psychological distance between teachers and students.
APPLICATIONS OF HUMOR
In addition, although the research results have been rather mixed, there is evi-
dence from some naturalistic classroom studies, as well as some recent well- con trolled
laboratory experiments on humor and memory, indicating that information that is
presented in a humorous manner is remembered better than information presented
in a serious way when both occur in the same context. However, the enhanced learn-
ing of humorous material occurs at the expense of poorer learning for nonhumorous
information. Teachers who wish to employ humor in their lessons to help students
remember the material should therefore be careful to use humor sparingly and to
associate it with key concepts rather than irrelevant information.
Finally, there is little evidence that the inclusion of humorous questions on tests
reduces test anxiety and improves test performance or that funny cartoons and illus-
trations in textbooks enhance students' ability to learn the information in the text,
although these uses of humor do appear to make the tests and textbooks more enjoy-
able to the students.
HUMOR IN THE WORKPLACE
Work is typically viewed as "serious business" and it seems to be the very antithe-
sis of play. In recent years, however, there has been considerable interest in the
potential benefits of increasing the amount of humor that occurs in the workplace. A
number of people have suggested that a more playful work environment in which
humor is encouraged might produce a happier, healthier, less stressed, and more pro-
ductive work force, engendering better social interactions among workers and
managers, and fostering more creative thinking and problem solving (e.g., Morreall,
1991). Although research evidence for a link between worker happiness and produc-
tivity is controversial (laffaldano and Muchinsky, 1985; Judge, Thoresen, Bono, and
Patton, 2001), the assumption seems to be that the improved rapport, teamwork, and
creativity resulting from humorous interactions will not only make for a more enjoy-
able work environment but will also translate into greater productivity and a better
bottom line for the company. Articles extolling the benefits of humor in the work-
place have appeared in numerous business magazines and trade journals (e.g., W. J.
Duncan and Feisal, 1989), and popular books have been written on the topic (e.g.,
Kushner, 1990).
In the past two decades these ideas have also given rise to a new breed of busi-
ness consultants who specialize in the promotion of humor at work (Gibson, 1994).
Besides producing newsletters, websites, books, and audiotapes proclaiming the
advantages of workplace humor, these "humor consultants" are frequently hired by
organizations to conduct entertaining workshops and seminars in which they teach
employees how to become more playful and humorous at work. While cautioning
against the use of inappropriate and offensive types of humor, they advocate that
workers engage in such playful activities as telling funny stories during breaks, making
a collection of jokes and cartoons to look at during times of stress, and posting
amusing baby pictures of fellow employees on a bulletin board.
HUMOR IN THE WORKPLACE
Most of these presentations take the form of motivational sessions that involve
humorous hands-on activities designed to loosen up the audience and overcome their
seriousness and inhibitions, such as having them juggle scarves or balloons, wear red
clown noses, balance pennies on their foreheads, or tell each other amusing personal
anecdotes. As Gibson (1994) noted, these efforts to promote humor at work are
appealing to management as well as employees, since they give both groups a greater
feeling of control. At the level of the individual, humor is seen as a tool for gaining
control over stress levels and relationships with fellow employees, while it gives orga-
nizations a sense of control over their employees, increasing their motivation, pro-
ductivity, and efficiency.
Gibson pointed out that the view of humor taken by these humor consultants is
a "rational/utilitarian" one. In other words, they see humor as a planned activity that
can be controlled and used as a tool for success, rather than a spontaneous social
behavior comprising emotional and unconscious elements that are often difficult to
control and manage. In addition, the type of humor that they advocate is one that
does not question the corporate status quo and is aimed at putting up with the system
rather than challenging or trying to alter it. Unfortunately, there does not appear to
be any empirical research on the effectiveness of these sorts of humor interventions
in business, although their continued popularity suggests that they meet with a recep-
tive audience among both workers and management.
Indeed, very little psychological research of any kind has been conducted on the
general topic of humor in the workplace. This is a potentially fruitful domain for
industrial-organizational psychologists to explore. Nonetheless, several largely
descriptive qualitative studies of humor in the work environment have been conducted
by sociologists and anthropologists. Many of these have been ethnographic studies in
which the researchers acted as participant observers in various work settings, carefully
observing the occurrence and effects of humor. These sorts of qualitative studies have
investigated humor among staff members in a psychiatric hospital (Coser, 1960), a
child care center (J. C. Meyer, 1997), and a hotel kitchen (R. B. Brown and Keegan,
1999); factory workers (Collinson, 1988; Ullian, 1976); members of a petroleum
exploration party (Traylor, 1973); and managers in a large multinational computer
company (Hatch and Ehrlich, 1993), a metropolitan zoo (D. M. Martin, 2004), and
various private companies (Grugulis, 2002).
In the following sections, I will briefly review some of the findings of these inves-
tigations as they pertain to the social functions of humor in the workplace, humor
and the corporate culture, the use of humor in negotiations and mediation, and the
role of humor in leadership (see also W. J. Duncan, Smeltzer, and Leap, 1990).
Social Functions of Humor in the Workplace
As I have already noted, humor serves a number of important social functions in
interpersonal communication. Besides being a form of play that enables individuals
to release tension and increase enjoyment, humor is a mode of communication that
is frequently used to convey certain types of information that would be more difficult
APPLICATIONS OF HUMOR
to express using a more serious mode (Mulkay, 1988). In particular, humor is often
used to communicate a socially risky message in an ambiguous context in a way that
allows both the speaker and the audience to "save face" if the message is not well
received.
Since the work situation is often characterized by ambiguity and uncertainty, it is
not surprising that humor is quite frequently used for these purposes at work. For
example, a worker who disagrees with a decision made by a supervisor can make a
joking comment about it in order to "test the water," rather than openly opposing the
superior. In this way, the worker can easily retract the criticism by saying it was "only
a joke" if the supervisor takes offense. These sorts of humorous comments can often
be quite funny and may generate a considerable amount of mirthful laughter, but they
also have a more serious underlying communication function. Humor of this sort is
a ubiquitous form of social communication that occurs frequently in interactions
between people in the work environment just as in other social settings.
Although humor consultants frequently make the claim that most workplaces are
much too serious, research indicates that humor and laughter actually occur quite fre-
quently at work. Janet Holmes and Meredith Marra (2 002 a) analyzed tape recordings
of a large number of team meetings of both blue-collar and white-collar workers in
various government departments, nonprofit organizations, and private companies, and
found that humorous comments and laughter among team members occurred an
average of once every two to five minutes. Humor and laughter occurred most fre-
quently in the meetings of factory workers and office workers in private companies,
and somewhat less often (although still quite frequently) in government offices and
nonprofit organizations. Although the frequency of humor and laughter in these work
settings was considerably less (about one-eighth as often) than that observed in groups
of close friends during casual interactions in the home (J. Holmes and Marra, 2002b),
these findings indicate that humor is much more common in the workplace than is
often assumed.
Some of the qualitative studies of humor at work have focused on potentially
beneficial effects of humor for relieving stress, enhancing enjoyment, and facilitating
cohesiveness among workers. For example, in a participant observation study of
humor in a small family-owned business, Karen Vinton (1989) concluded that humor,
in the form of telling humorous anecdotes, friendly teasing, and witty banter, served
a variety of largely beneficial social functions. In particular, humor was used as a means
of socializing new employees into the organizational culture, creating a more plea-
sant work environment, lessening status differentials between people and thereby
making it easier for them to work cooperatively, and as a relatively nonconfrontational
way of prodding people to get their work done.
In a study of humor occurring in task-oriented managerial meetings, Carmine
Consalvo (1989) observed that humor and laughter occurred most frequently during
transition points, such as when group members moved from a problem-identification
phase to a problem-solving phase in their discussions. She concluded that humor at
these times signaled a willingness to work together to solve the problem and con-
veyed an open, accepting, and mutually supportive attitude among group members.
HUMOR IN THE WORKPLACE
On the other hand, much of the research on humor in the workplace also reveals
the paradoxical nature of humor, showing that although it can be used to increase
cohesiveness and facilitate working relationships, it can also be used in subversive ways
to express disagreement and create divisions among people. In a content analysis of
the humor observed in tape recordings of a number of mixed-gender team meetings
in two large business organizations, Holmes and Marra (2002b) distinguished between
humor that serves to strengthen existing solidarity and power relationships ("re-
inforcing humor") and humor that challenges existing power relationships ("subver-
sive humor"). Reinforcing humor consisted of amusing anecdotes and joking
comments that served to emphasize and maintain friendly and collegial relationships
among participants.
These researchers found, however, that almost 40 percent of the humor in these
organizational meetings could be characterized as subversive. Interestingly, the fre-
quency of these more negative uses of humor in the workplace was about 10 times
that observed in groups of friends in casual nonwork settings, likely because of the
greater tensions and power differentials present in the workplace. Nearly half of this
subversive humor targeted specific individuals who were present in the team meet-
ings, often for the purpose of undermining their power or status. Another sizable
proportion of subversive humor was aimed at the group as a whole or the larger organ-
ization, challenging or criticizing particular values, attitudes, or goals. Finally, a small
proportion was directed at the societal level, questioning the ideology of the business
community or broader institutional or societal values.
The subversive humor that was observed in this study took a variety of forms.
The most frequent of these was the use of quips, defined as short witty or ironic com-
ments about the ongoing action or topic under discussion, which occurred much more
frequently in the work setting than in casual friendship groups. Other common forms
of subversive humor included jocular abuse (a witty insult or put-down remark aimed
at someone present), and role-play, in which one person parodied another person's
style of speaking.
Based on these qualitative analyses, the authors suggested that subversive humor
in business meetings is a socially acceptable mechanism for subordinates to challenge
or criticize superiors, disagree with others, or question group decisions. For managers
and team leaders, it is an acceptable method of commenting on nonconformist or
uncooperative behavior and generally controlling participants in an interaction. Thus,
these uses of humor serve a purpose of furthering the goals of individual participants
in team discussions, although they do not necessarily contribute to the overall
cohesiveness of the team.
In a review of sociological studies of humor in the workplace, Tom Dwyer (1991)
similarly concluded that humor occurs very frequently in most organizations and that
it often reflects the tensions and power dynamics within the organization. According
to Dwyer, humor can be used either to conserve and reinforce the status quo or to
undermine the authority of particular individuals and change the equilibrium of
power. For example, observational studies have shown that workers often use humor
to joke about the inadequacies of managers, to complain about poor working
APPLICATIONS OF HUMOR
conditions, and to protest against seemingly arbitrary rules. For their part, managers
use humor to mask the authoritarian nature of a message or to create divisions among
subordinates so as to weaken their collective power.
Dwyer also noted that joking is often used as a way of enforcing norms and expec-
tations, as well as a tool for constructing and defending group identity. The joking
and playful banter that frequently goes on among workers helps to define the differ-
ent social groupings, reinforces the ranking of group members within and between
groups, and clarifies the status of groups in relation to each other. According to Dwyer,
the relative power and goals of individuals in the work setting determine who tells
jokes, who is the target of the jokes, and who laughs at them. Thus, an analysis of the
humor and laughter that occurs in an organization could be a useful tool for explor-
ing the power structures, tensions, and dynamics within the organization.
These varied social functions of humor are well illustrated in an observational
study by David Collinson (1988) examining the humor of male shop-floor workers in
the parts division of a lorry (truck) factory in England. Collinson observed that these
workers engaged in nearly constant joking, humorous banter, witty repartee, and
horseplay in their interactions with one another. While much of this humor could be
viewed on one level as a way of finding fun and releasing tension in the monotony of
tightly controlled, repetitious work tasks, on another level it could be seen as serving
several important social functions. One of these functions was putting up resistance
to the social organization of the company. For example, humor often involved making
fun of managers and white-collar staff, emphasizing the workers' self-differentiation
from, and antagonism toward, these groups.
Although the managers often tried to use humor to engage the workers and
obscure the conflict and power differential inherent in their relationships, the workers
tended to resist these overtures, excluding the managers from their joking relation-
ships. In addition to expressing antagonism and resistance toward management,
humor on the shop floor served to enforce conformity among the workers themselves.
A good deal of humor, in the form of highly aggressive teasing, sarcastic put-downs,
and practical jokes, seemed to be a way of communicating and enforcing group norms
and expectations, particularly concerning behaviors associated with working-class
masculinity. Anyone who deviated from these social norms would be subjected to con-
stant teasing and practical jokes, providing a powerful incentive to conform.
In summary, this brief review of the existing observational research suggests that,
although humor may be a way of releasing tension, having fun, and improving morale
at work, it also often serves more "serious" social functions. Humor can be a way of
increasing cohesiveness, facilitating communication, and reducing interpersonal ten-
sions, but it can also be a method of communicating disagreement, enforcing norms,
excluding individuals, and emphasizing divisions between groups.
In view of the complexity, subversiveness, uncontrollability, and paradoxical qual-
ities of humor revealed by these analyses, it seems rather simplistic and naive to
suggest, as do some humor consultants, that simply increasing the level of humor and
fun in an organization will result in many desirable changes and improved produc-
tivity. Since humor is already ubiquitous in the workplace, serving many different
HUMOR IN THE WORKPLACE
functions and reflecting the social structures and power dynamics of the organization,
the task for managers seems to be not so much to increase the level of fun and laugh-
ter, but to understand the meaning of the humor that already exists and to attempt to
channel it in productive directions. This is likely easier said than done, however, and
more carefully controlled empirical research on this topic is clearly needed before we
can confidently provide useful guidance to business organizations about how best to
promote positive humor in the workplace.
Humor as a Reflection of Organizational Culture
The concept of corporate or organizational culture refers to the sense of shared
values, norms, and behavior patterns that bind members of an organization together
and give it a distinctive identity (Deal and Kennedy, 1982). Organizational researchers
view corporate culture as an important factor in determining the degree to which an
organization is able to remain productive and competitive. Some research indicates
that part of what makes for a successful organizational culture is a sense of cama-
raderie among employees and feeling good about what they do. Some authors have
suggested that the sharing of humor among members of an organization is an impor-
tant aspect of a successful corporate culture (e.g., Clouse and Spurgeon, 1995).
In their study of humor in work team meetings described earlier, Holmes and
Marra (2 002 a) examined the way in which the frequency, type, and style of humor
that arises in a particular workplace reflects the broader culture of the organization.
For example, they found that blue-collar employees in a fairly cohesive and mutually
dependent factory work team tended to produce high-frequency humor in the form
of brief single quips using a competitive humor style (i.e., each trying to outdo the
other in wittiness), but in a socially supportive manner (i.e., using humor to agree
with, add to, elaborate, or strengthen the argument of a previous speaker). On the
other hand, during meetings of white-collar staff in a private commercial organiza-
tion, there was also a good deal of humor, but it took the form of more extended,
somewhat competitive humor sequences, and tended to be much more contestive than
supportive (i.e., using humor to challenge, disagree with, or undermine the authority
of previous speakers), reflecting the individualistic and competitive culture of this
private business.
Yet another pattern of humor was observed during staff meetings in government
departments and nonprofit organizations, where humor took the form of extended
sequences, a collaborative humor style (i.e., building on and extending one another's
humorous comments rather than trying to outdo one another with humor), and a
more supportive than contestive use of humor, reflecting a generally collegial, focused,
and cooperative style of interactions in these organizations as a whole. Thus, the
overall culture, goals, and emphases of a given organization seem to be reflected in
the ways individuals in the organization use humor in their interpersonal communi-
cation. As suggested earlier, analysis of the humor occurring in an organization might
be a useful method of evaluating its overall corporate culture. This is another topic
that may yield interesting findings in future research.
APPLICATIONS OF HUMOR
Humor in Negotiation and Mediation
Some authors have suggested that humor may be an important tool for facilitat-
ing negotiations and mediation, particularly during times of conflict and tension
between parties. John Forester (2004) emphasized that the use of humor in media-
tion is not simply a matter of telling jokes, but involves the expression of spontaneous
humor in the flow of conversation to alter perspectives, change disabling expectations,
reframe relationships, and provide multiple points of view on topics. The use of humor
to "test the water" and to communicate potentially risky or threatening messages in
a face-saving way, as discussed earlier, seems to be particularly relevant in this context,
where interpersonal tensions and conflicting points of view are an inevitable part of
the process.
These communication functions of humor were illustrated in a qualitative study
of humor observed in a video recording of sales negotiations between a salesman from
a parts supply company and a potential buyer who was a proprietor of a photographic
equipment shop (Mulkay, Clark, and Pinch, 1993). This study suggested that humor
is used to deal with difficulties arising in these types of interactions in a way that avoids
confrontation and enables both parties to save face while still furthering their own
goals. For example, the prospective buyer used a great deal of humor as a way of refus-
ing to buy the salesman's products, requesting concessions, halting a persistent sales
pitch, suggesting that the prices were too high, and hinting that the goods were of
inferior quality. For his part, the salesman made use of humor to try to overcome the
buyer's resistance, to make fun of his various excuses for not buying the products, and
to forestall further criticism. Thus, humor seems to be a commonly used method for
dealing with problems and tensions that are inherent in these types of business
transactions, enabling individuals to express their views without appearing overly
confrontational.
Viveka Adelsward and Britt-Marie Oberg (1998) also conducted qualitative
research on the role of humor in business negotiations by analyzing all utterances that
were followed by laughter in tape recordings of a number of business meetings and
telephone conversations between buyers and sellers. As in the study by Consalvo
(1989) mentioned earlier, they found that during negotiation sessions, humor fre-
quently occurred around topic transitions, such as when a group was moving from
initial introductions to the discussion of a problem, or from the presentation of a
problem to a negotiation phase. They suggested that this use of humor served as a
way of structuring the ongoing process by signaling a desire of some participants to
move on to a different topic without appearing to be too abrupt or controlling. In
addition, humor often appeared to be used to smooth tensions between participants
and to find common ground.
The researchers noted that the occurrence of laughter during negotiations was
often a sign that the participants were dealing with particularly difficult or sensitive
topics, such as haggling over a price. They also found that whether or not others
laughed at a humorous comment made by a speaker depended on the relative status
or power advantage of the speaker. In particular, joint laughter was much more likely
HUMOR IN THE WORKPLACE
to occur when the speaker had higher status (e.g., the team leader) or had some other
advantage (e.g., being the buyer rather than the seller). In contrast, when a humor-
ous comment was made by a speaker with lower status or one who was at some sort
of disadvantage, he or she was often the only one who laughed. This research sug-
gests that the ability to use humor effectively may be an important social skill for indi-
viduals involved in sensitive negotiations.
Humor in Leadership
It has often been suggested that a good sense of humor is an important charac-
teristic for effective leadership, along with other abilities such as intelligence, cre-
ativity, persuasiveness, good speaking ability, and social skills. Research on leadership
behavior indicates that effective leadership requires skills in the general areas of (1)
giving and seeking information, (2) making decisions, (3) influencing people, and (4)
building relationships (Yukl and Lepsinger, 1990). These broad skill areas have been
further divided into a variety of component behaviors, many of which have to do with
interpersonal relations and communication, such as the ability to communicate and
get along well with subordinates, peers, and superiors, to manage conflict, motivate
others, and enhance group cohesion and cooperation. As an important communica-
tion skill, humor can be seen as potentially useful to leaders and managers in many
of these areas. For example, the use of humor could be beneficial for teaching and
clarifying work tasks, helping to motivate and change behavior, promoting creativity,
coping with stress, and generally making the interactions between the manager and
subordinates more positive and less tense (Decker and Rotondo, 2001).
A few survey studies have examined the correlation between sense of humor and
perceived leadership qualities by asking workers to rate their supervisors on these
dimensions. In a survey of 290 workers, Wayne Decker (1987) found that those who
rated their supervisors as being high in sense of humor also reported greater job sat-
isfaction and rated these supervisors as having generally more positive leadership
characteristics as compared to participants who rated their supervisors as low in sense
of humor.
Similarly, in two survey studies in which military cadets were asked about the per-
sonality traits of particularly good and bad leaders that they had worked with, Robert
Priest and Jordan Swain (2002) found that good leaders were rated as having a sig-
nificantly more warm, competent, and benign humorous style, whereas bad leaders
were rated as having a more cold, inept, and mean-spirited humorous style. On the
other hand, the two types of leaders did not differ in the degree to which they were
perceived to display boorish (versus reflective) or earthy (versus repressed) styles of
humor.
Wayne Decker and Denise Rotondo (2001) conducted a study to determine
whether the importance of a sense of humor for effective leadership differs for male
versus female leaders. These researchers asked a large number of men and women
employed in a variety of organizations and geographic areas to evaluate their man-
agers' use of positive and negative humor, task behaviors, relationship behaviors, and
APPLICATIONS OF HUMOR
overall leadership effectiveness. Positive humor referred to the managers' use of
humor to communicate, enjoyment of jokes, and use of nonoffensive humor, whereas
negative humor was their use of sexual and insulting humor.
Regression analyses showed that greater perceived use of positive humor by man-
agers was associated with more successful task and relationship behaviors and greater
overall effectiveness, whereas greater use of negative humor was related to lower
ratings on these measures of managerial competence. With regard to sex differences,
although male managers were rated as using both more positive and more negative
humor than female managers, the associations between humor and leadership com-
petence measures were found to be stronger for women than for men. Thus, the use
of benign humor by female as compared to male managers was more strongly posi-
tively associated with workers' perceptions of their leadership skills, and by the same
token the use of sexual or offensive humor was more negatively related to perceived
leadership in women than in men.
Overall, these studies provide evidence that supervisors who are perceived by their
subordinates to have a positive sense of humor also tend to be viewed as being effec-
tive leaders, although leaders who use humor inappropriately tend to receive more
negative evaluations of their leadership skills. Of course, the correlational and rather
subjective nature of this research makes it difficult to determine the direction of
causality. A greater sense of humor may cause a leader to be more effective, but these
findings may also simply be due to a "halo effect," whereby greater overall liking of
a supervisor may cause subordinates to perceive him or her as having a better sense
of humor as well as better leadership skills. Future research should employ more
objective assessments of humor and leadership instead of relying solely on employee
ratings. Further research is also needed to investigate the ways in which effective
leaders actually express humor and how this humor might contribute to their leader-
ship competence.
Conclusion
Humor consultants and others who advocate the promotion of humor in the
workplace often claim that increased levels of humor at work will result in a variety
of benefits, including greater teamwork and cooperation, improved social interactions
among workers and managers, better worker morale and health, reduced stress, and
greater creativity, problem solving, and productivity. Although most of the studies
of humor in the workplace are qualitative and descriptive, the existing research
suggests that these sorts of enthusiastic claims are somewhat simplistic. Although
the workplace is often viewed as excessively serious and devoid of humor, the
research indicates that humor and laughter actually occur quite frequently in most
organizations.
In addition, this research suggests that humor in the workplace serves a variety
of functions, including ones that could be detrimental to worker morale and a pro-
ductive work environment, as well as ones that contribute to teamwork and cooper-
ation. Besides being a form of play that is useful for relieving tension and making
GENERAL DISCUSSION
work more enjoyable, humor serves important functions as a mode of communica-
tion that is useful for expressing potentially risky messages in the ambiguous context
of work. As such, humor can be used to convey many different types of messages and
to achieve many different goals. It may be used to lessen or to reinforce status dif-
ferences, to express agreement or disagreement, to facilitate cooperation or resistance,
to include others in a group or to exclude them, to strengthen solidarity and rela-
tionships, or to undermine power and status.
Thus, simply increasing the level of humor at work is not likely to have purely
positive consequences. Although most humor consultants would agree that certain
types of humor are inappropriate and detrimental in the workplace, it is not a simple
matter to distinguish between detrimental and facilitative forms of humor, or to
promote one type of humor and not the other. For example, it is often difficult to
know where friendly teasing and playful banter end and where ridicule and unwanted
joking begin.
As in psychotherapy and education, there are potential risks as well as benefits
associated with humor in the workplace. One particularly negative type of humor that
has received considerable attention in recent decades is the use of derogatory humor
as a form of harassment. Duncan, Smeltzer, and Leap (1990) noted that work-related
sexual and racial harassment and discrimination cases are often precipitated by jokes,
teasing, and pranks of a sexual or racial nature. In a survey of 13,000 federal employ-
ees, the most prevalent form of sexual harassment was unwanted sexual teasing
and joking. Humor that involves horseplay and practical jokes can also create a stress-
ful work environment, cause disruptions or safety hazards, or result in property
damage.
As in other areas, humor in the context of work seems to be best viewed as a type
of social skill or interpersonal competence (Yip and Martin, in press) that can be used
for negative as well as positive purposes. Thus, the task of managers and business con-
sultants is not simply to increase the levels of humor among employees, but to attempt
to understand the ways in which the humor that already exists reflects the power
dynamics and general culture within the organization. Improving the quality of humor
in the workplace may require efforts to change the overall organizational culture and
power structures rather than simply having workers attend a workshop where they
learn to tell funny stories and engage in silly activities.
GENERAL DISCUSSION
A number of practitioners in the fields of psychotherapy and counseling, educa-
tion, and business consulting have touted the supposed benefits of humor and laugh-
ter in each of these domains, claiming that greater uses of humor might improve the
effectiveness of therapy and counseling, increase student enjoyment and learning in
education, and enhance health, morale, and productivity in the workplace. Most of
these claims are based on anecdotes and the personal experiences of practitioners.
Although empirical work in these areas is quite limited, our review of the relevant
APPLICATIONS OF HUMOR
research literature suggests a gap between many of the enthusiastic claims of practi-
tioners and the evidence of science.
Interestingly, although in some respects these advocates of humor applications
may be seen as going too far in their claims about the potential benefits of humor, in
other respects it can also be argued that they do not go far enough in recognizing the
prevalence and importance of humor in all types of social interaction. Although humor
promoters often claim that that there is not enough humor in psychotherapy, educa-
tion, and the workplace, studies indicate that humor and laughter actually occur quite
frequently in all of these domains. Since humor is a ubiquitous aspect of nearly all
interpersonal relationships, we should not be surprised to discover that it is frequently
encountered in the interactions between therapists and clients, between teachers and
students, and among individuals working in the same organizations.
Although practitioners who actively promote humor in these fields tend to view
it as generally positive and beneficial to mental and physical health, educational
achievement, and cooperative relationships at work, research indicates that humor can
be used for a wide range of purposes and to achieve many different goals, some of
which may be detrimental to the broader goals of therapists, educators, and business
organizations. In each of these fields, humor advocates tend to take a "rational/utili-
tarian" approach to humor (Gibson, 1994), seeing it as something that can be manip-
ulated, planned, and controlled in a rational way. However, a more complex view of
humor has emerged in the research that we have explored throughout this book, por-
traying it as a phenomenon that often occurs spontaneously and has unconscious
(as well as conscious) emotional and cognitive determinants that are not so easily
managed or controlled. Indeed, humor that is consciously created by therapists, teach-
ers, or managers with the goal of having a particular effect on others is likely to come
across as stilted, forced, and artificial.
A more realistic view of humor seems to be that it is an inevitable and important
aspect of human social interaction in all areas of our lives, including therapy, educa-
tion, and the workplace. As such, it can serve many different social functions, depend-
ing on the goals, status, motives, and needs of the individual. Rather than simply trying
to increase the level of humor in each of the fields that we have discussed, we need
to try to gain a more thorough understanding of the ways humor is already being used
and the many functions served by different types of humor in these contexts. In this
way, we can begin to identify appropriate and beneficial types of humor that further
the goals of therapists, educators, and business leaders, as well as inappropriate and
detrimental forms of humor.
One research question that also requires further attention is the degree to which
it is even possible to modify people's sense of humor. Many of the applications of
humor that we have discussed involve helping people to increase the amount of humor
that they engage in or to change their predominant styles of humor (cf. McGhee,
1999). However, it is still not clear whether this is even possible. As noted in Chapter
9, the only published study addressing this question was one conducted by Ofra Nevo
and her colleagues (1998). In this study, 101 female high school teachers were
randomly assigned to either an active-production humor training program (which
GENERAL DISCUSSION
provided training in a variety of humor creation techniques), a passive-appreciation
humor program (focusing on ways to increase opportunities for enjoying humor in
one's daily life), a nonhumorous activity control group, or a waiting list control group.
All but the waiting list group met for seven weekly three-hour sessions.
At the end of the program, testing revealed that the two humor training groups
were only partially successful in improving participants' sense of humor. On the pos-
itive side, the participants in the humor groups, compared to those in the control
groups, reported significantly more positive attitude towards humor and were rated
by their peers as having higher levels of humor production and appreciation. On the
negative side, however, they did not show any improvements on objective measures
of their ability to actually produce humor, and there were no changes in their scores
on self-report humor scales. There is clearly a need for further research to determine
the degree to which it is possible to increase the quantity or improve the quality of
people's habitual uses of humor and, if so, what training methods may be most effec-
tive. This sort of program evaluation research should be carried out by practitioners
before they attempt to promote the widespread implementation of unproven humor
interventions.
The general topic of humor applications presents many interesting questions and
potentially fertile topics for future research in the applied areas of clinical/counsel-
ing, educational, and industrial-organizational psychology. In each of these fields,
further research is needed to investigate the role and functions of humor, the ways
people use it to achieve their personal goals, and the types of humor that are poten-
tially beneficial as well as detrimental to broader professional goals.
Although practitioners who advocate humor applications in health care, psy-
chotherapy, education, and business have drawn attention to potentially interesting
research questions, there is also a risk that their excessive claims and simplistic, pop-
psychology writings may drive away some basic and applied researchers in psychol-
ogy, who may perceive these ideas as trivial and unimportant or may not wish to be
seen as promoting overly simplistic and unscientific agendas. However, this would be
unfortunate.
As I have tried to show throughout this book, humor is a ubiquitous aspect of
human behavior that touches on every area of psychology. It is an interesting phe-
nomenon in its own right that merits further investigation to understand more fully
how it works and what functions it serves in human cognition, emotion, and social
behavior. Basic research of this kind may lead to interesting new insights about poten-
tial applications in various domains. Whether the focus is on basic processes or prac-
tical applications, the psychology of humor continues to be a fascinating topic of
research that promises many more interesting and useful discoveries.
Abel, M. H. (1998). Interaction of humor and gender in moderating relationships between stress
and outcomes. Journal of Psychology, 132(3), 267-276.
Abel, M. H. (2002). Humor, stress, and coping strategies. Humor: International Journal of Humor
Research, 75(4), 365-381.
Abel, M. H., & Maxwell, D. (2002). Humor and affective consequences of a stressful task.
Journal of Social 6" Clinical Psychology, 21(2), 165-190.
Abelson, R. P. (1981). Psychological status of the script concept. American Psychologist, 36,
715-729.
Adams, E. R., & McGuire, F. A. (1986). Is laughter the best medicine? A study of the
effects of humor on perceived pain and affect. Activities, Adaptation & Aging, #(3-4),
157-175.
Adams, P., & Mylander, M. (1998). Gesundbeit!: Bringing good health to you, the medical system,
and society through physician service, complementary therapies, humor, and joy. Rochester, VT:
Healing Arts Press.
Adelsward, V, & Oberg, B.-M. (1998). The function of laughter and joking in negotiation activ-
ities. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 11(4), 411-429.
Ainsworth, M. D. S., Bell, S. M., & Stayton, D. J. (1991). Infant-mother attachment and social
development: 'Socialisation' as a product of reciprocal responsiveness to signals. In M.
Woodhead, R. Carr & P. Light (Eds.), Becoming a person (pp. 30-55). London: Routledge.
Alexander, R. D. (1986). Ostracism and indirect reciprocity: The reproductive significance of
humor. Ethology & Sociobiology, 7(3-4), 253-270.
Allport, G. W. (1950). The individual and his religion. New York: Macmillan.
Allport, G. W. (1961). Pattern and growth in personality. New York: Holt, Reinhart & Winston.
373
REFERENCES
American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of 'mental disorders (4th
ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association.
Andersen, J. F. (1979). Teacher immediacy as a predictor of teaching effectiveness. In D. Nimmo
(Ed.), Communication Yearbook 3 (pp. 543-559). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.
Anderson, C. A., & Arnoult, L. H. (1989). An examination of perceived control, humor, irra-
tional beliefs, and positive stress as moderators of the relation between negative stress and
health. Basic fa Applied Social Psychology, 10(2), 101-117.
Andrews, R. (1993). The Columbia dictionary of quotations. New York: Columbia University Press.
Apte, M. L. (1985). Humor and laughter: An anthropological approach. Ithaca, NY: Cornell
University Press.
Apter, M. J. (1982). The experience of motivation: The theory of psychological reversals. London:
Academic Press.
Apter, M. J. (1991). A structural-phenomenology of play. In J. H. Kerr & M. J. Apter (Eds.),
Adult play: A reversal theory approach (pp. 13-29). Amsterdam: Swets & Zeitlinger.
Apter, M. J. (1992). The dangerous edge: The psychology of excitement. New York: Free Press.
Apter, M. J. (Ed.). (2001). Motivational styles in everyday life: A guide to reversal theory.
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Apter, M. J., & Smith, K. C. P. (1977). Humour and the theory of psychological reversals.
In A. J. Chapman & H. C. Foot (Eds.), It's a funny thing, humour (pp. 95-100). Oxford:
Pergamon Press.
Arriaga, X. B. (2002). Joking violence among highly committed individuals. Journal of Inter-
personal Violence, 17(6), 591-610.
Arroyo, S., Lesser, R. P., Gordon, B., Uematsu, S., Hart, J., Schwerdt, P., et al. (1993). Mirth,
laughter and gelastic seizures. Brain, 116, 757-780.
Askenasy, J. J. (1987). The functions and dysfunctions of laughter. Journal of General Psychol-
ogy, 114(4), 317-334.
Aspinwall, L. G., & Staudinger, U. M. (2003). A psychology of human strengths: Fundamental ques-
tions and future directions for a positive psychology. Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association.
Atsumi, T, Fujisawa, S., Nakabayashi, Y, Kawarai, T, Yasui, T, & Tonosaki, K. (2004). Plea-
sant feeling from watching a comical video enhances free radical-scavenging capacity in
human whole saliva. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 55(3), 377-379.
Attardo, S. (1994). Linguistic theories of humor. Hawthorne, NY: Mouton de Gruyter.
Attardo, S. (1997). The semantic foundations of cognitive theories of humor. Humor: Interna-
tional Journal of Humor Research, 10(4), 395-420.
Attardo, S. (1998). The analysis of humorous narratives. Humor: International Journal of Humor
Research, 11(3), 231-260.
Attardo, S., Hempelmann, C. E, & Di Maio, S. (2002). Script oppositions and logical mecha-
nisms: Modeling incongruities and their resolutions. Humor: International Journal of Humor
Research, 75(1), 3-46.
Attardo, S., & Raskin, V. (1991). Script theory revis(it)ed: Joke similarity and joke representa-
tion model. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 4(3-4), 293-347.
Averill, J. R. (1969). Autonomic response patterns during sadness and mirth. Psychophysiology,
5, 399^14.
Azim, E., Mobbs, D., Jo, B., Menon, V., & Reiss, A. L. (2005). Sex differences in brain activa-
tion elicited by humor. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 102(45), 16496-16501 .
Babad, E. Y. (1974). A multi-method approach to the assessment of humor: A critical look at
humor tests. Journal of Personality, 42(4), 618-631.
REFERENCES 31
Bachelor, A., & Horvath, A. (1999). The therapeutic relationship. In M. A. Hubble, B. L.
Duncan & S. D. Miller (Eds.), The heart and soul of change: What works in therapy
(pp. 133-178). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Bachorowski, J.-A., & Owren, M. J. (2001). Not all laughs are alike: Voiced but not unvoiced
laughter readily elicits positive affect. Psychological Science, .72(3), 252-257.
Bachorowski, J.-A., & Owren, M. J. (2003). Sounds of emotion: Production and perception of
affect-related vocal acoustics. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1000.
Bachorowski, J.-A., Smoski, M. J., & Owen, M. J. (2001). The acoustic features of human laugh-
ter. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, //0(3, Pt 1), 1581-1597.
Bainum, C. K., Lounsbury, K. R., & Pollio, H. R. (1984). The development of laughing and
smiling in nursery school children. Child Development, 55(5), 1946-1957.
Bariaud, F. (1988). Age differences in children's humor. Journal of Children in Contemporary
Society, 20(1-2), 15^5.
Barnett, L. A. (1990). Playfulness: Definition, design, and measurement. Play fc Culture, 5(4),
319-336.
Barnett, L. A. (1991). The playful child: Measurement of a disposition to play. Play fc Culture,
4(1), 51-74.
Baron, R. A. (1978a). Aggression-inhibiting influence of sexual humor. Journal of Personality &
Social Psychology, 36(2), 189-197.
Baron, R. A. (1978b). The influence of hostile and nonhostile humor upon physical aggression.
Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 4(1), 77-80.
Baron, R. A., & Ball, R. L. (1974). The aggression-inhibiting influence of nonhostile humor.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 10(1), 23-33.
Bartlett, F. C. (1932). Remembering. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bateson, P. (2005). The role of play in the evolution of great apes and humans. In A. D.
Pellegrini & P. K. Smith (Eds.), The nature of play: Great apes and humans (pp. 13-24). New
York: Guilford Press.
Belanger, H. G., Kirkpatrick, L. A., & Derks, P. (1998). The effects of humor on verbal
and imaginal problem solving. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 11(1), 21-
31.
Bell, N. J., McGhee, P. E., & Duffey, N. S. (1986). Interpersonal competence, social assertive-
ness and the development of humour. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 4(1),
51-55.
Benedetti, F. (2002). How the doctor's words affect the patient's brain. Evaluation & the Health
Professions, 25(4), 369-386.
Bergen, D. (1998a). Development of the sense of humor. In W. Ruch (Ed.), The sense of humor:
Explorations of a personality characteristic (pp. 329-358). Berlin, Germany: Walter de
Gruyter.
Bergen, D. (1998b). Play as a context for humor development. In D. P. Fromberg & D. Bergen
(Eds.), Play from birth to twelve and beyond: Contexts, perspectives, and meanings (pp. 324-337).
New York: Garland.
Bergen, D. (2002). Finding the humor in children's play. In J. L. Roopnarine (Ed.), Conceptual,
social-cognitive, and contextual issues in the fields of play (pp. 209-220). Westport, CT: Ablex
Publishing.
Bergen, D. (2003). Humor, play, and child development. In A. J. Klein (Ed.), Humor in chil-
dren's lives: A guidebook for practitioners (pp. 17-32). Westport, CT: Praeger.
Berger, A. A. (1995). Blind men and elephants: Perspectives on humor. New Brunswick, NJ: Trans-
action Publishers.
REFERENCES
Bergmann, M. S. (1999). The psychoanalysis of humor and humor in psychoanalysis. In J. W.
Barron (Ed.), Humor and psyche: Psychoanalytic perspectives (pp. 11-30). Hillsdale, NJ: The
Analytic Press.
Bergson, H. (1911). Laughter: An essay on the meaning of the comic. Oxford: Macmillan.
Berk, L. S., Felten, D. L., Tan, S. A., Bittman, B. B., & Westengard, J. (2001). Modulation of
neuroimmune parameters during the eustress of humor-associated mirthful laughter. Alter-
native Therapies, 7(2), 62-76.
Berk, L. S., Tan, S. A, Fry, W. F., Napier, B. J., Lee, J. W., Hubbard, R. W., et al. (1989).
Neuroendocrine and stress hormone changes during mirthful laughter. American Journal
of the Medical Sciences, 298, 390-396.
Berk, R. A., & Nanda, J. R (1998). Effects of jocular instructional methods on attitudes, anxiety,
and achievement in statistics courses. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 11(4),
383-409.
Berkowitz, L. (1970). Aggressive humor as a stimulus to aggressive responses. Journal of Per-
sonality & Social Psychology, 16(4), 710-717.
Berlyne, D. E. (1960). Conflict, arousal, and curiosity. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Berlyne, D. E. (1969). Laughter, humor, and play. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.), The
handbook of social psychology (2nd ed., Vol. 3, pp. 795-852). Reading, MA: Addison- Wesley.
Berlyne, D. E. (1972). Humor and its kin. In J. H. Goldstein & P. E. McGhee (Eds.), The
psychology of humor: Theoretical perspectives and empirical issues (pp. 43-60). New York:
Academic Press.
Bernet, W. (1993). Humor in evaluating and treating children and adolescents. Journal of Psy-
chotherapy Practice & Research, 2(4), 307-317.
Berns, G. S. (2004). Something funny happened to reward. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8(5),
193-194.
Bernstein, D. K. (1986). The development of humor: Implications for assessment and inter-
vention. Topics in Language Disorders, 5(4), 65-71.
Berscheid, E., & Reis, H. T. (1998). Attraction and close relationships. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T.
Fiske & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (4th ed., Vol. 2, pp. 193-281).
Boston: McGraw-Hill.
Besemer, S. P., & Treffinger, D. J. (1981). Analysis of creative products: Review and synthesis.
Journal of Creative Behavior, 15, 158-178.
Bihrle, A. M., Brownell, H. H., & Gardner, H. (1988). Humor and the right hemisphere:
A narrative perspective. In H. A. Whitaker (Ed.), Contemporary reviews in neuropsychology
(pp. 109-126). New York: Springer-Verlag.
Bihrle, A. M., Brownell, H. H., & Powelson, J. A. (1986). Comprehension of humorous and
nonhumorous materials by left and right brain-damaged patients. Brain & Cognition, 5(4),
399-411.
Bill, B., & Naus, P. (1992). The role of humor in the interpretation of sexist incidents. Sex Roles,
27(11-12), 645-664.
Binsted, K., Pain, H., & Ritchie, G. (1997). Children's evaluation of computer-generated
punning riddles. Pragmatics and Cognition, 5(2), 309-358.
Binsted, K., & Ritchie, G. (1997). Computational rules for generating punning riddles. Humor:
International Journal of Humor Research, 10(1), 25-76.
Binsted, K., & Ritchie, G. (2001). Towards a model of story puns. Humor: International Journal
of Humor Research, 14(3), 275-292.
Bippus, A. M. (2000a). Humor usage in comforting episodes: Factors predicting outcomes.
Western Journal of Communication, 64(4), 359-384.
REFERENCES 377
Bippus, A. M. (2000b). Making sense of humor in young romantic relationships: Understand-
ing partners' perceptions. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 13(4), 395-417.
Bizi, S., Keinan, G., & Beit-Hallahmi, B. (1988). Humor and coping with stress: A test under
real-life conditions. Personality & Individual Differences, 9(6), 951-956.
Blakemore, S. J., Wolpert, D. M., & Frith, C. D. (1998). Central cancellation of self-produced
tickle sensation. Nature Neuroscience, 1(7), 635-640.
Bloch, S. (1987). Humor in group therapy. In W. F. Fry & W. A. Salameh (Eds.), Handbook of
humor and psychotherapy: Advances in the clinical use of humor (pp. 171-194). Sarasota, FL:
Professional Resource Exchange.
Bloch, S., Browning, S., & McGrath, G. (1983). Humour in group psychotherapy. British
Journal of Medical Psychology, 56(1), 89-97.
Bonanno, G. A., & Keltner, D. (1997). Facial expressions of emotion and the course of conju-
gal bereavement. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 106(1), 126-137.
Booth, R. J., & Pennebaker, J. W. (2000). Emotions and immunity. In M. Lewis & J. M.
Haviland-Jones (Eds.), Handbook of emotions (2nd ed., pp. 558-570). New York: Guilford.
Borcherdt, B. (2002). Humor and its contributions to mental health. Journal of Rational-Emotive
& Cognitive Behavior Therapy, 20(3^), 247-257.
Bowlby, J. (1982). Attachment (2nd ed.). New York: Basic Books.
Boyle, G. J., & Joss-Reid, J. M. (2004). Relationship of humour to health: A psychometric inves-
tigation. British Journal of Health Psychology, 9(1), 51-66.
Breckler, S. J., Olson, J. M., & Wiggins, E. C. (2006). Social psychology alive. Belmont, CA:
Thompson-Wadsworth.
Bressler, E. R., & Balshine, S. (2006). The influence of humor on desirability. Evolution and
Human Behavior, 27(1), 29-39.
Bressler, E. R., Martin, R. A., & Balshine, S. (2006). Production and appreciation of humor as
sexually selected traits. Evolution and Human Behavior, 27(2), 121-130.
Brodzinsky, D. M. (1975). The role of conceptual tempo and stimulus characteristics in chil-
dren's humor development. Developmental Psychology, 11(6), 843-850.
Brodzinsky, D. M. (1977). Children's comprehension and appreciation of verbal jokes in rela-
tion to conceptual tempo. Child Development, 48(3), 960-967.
Brodzinsky, D. M., Barnet, K., & Aiello, J. R. (1981). Sex of subject and gender identity as
factors in humor appreciation. Sex Roles, 12, 195-219.
Brodzinsky, D. M., & Rubien, J. (1976). Humor production as a function of sex of subject, cre-
ativity, and cartoon content. Journal of Consulting & Clinical Psychology, 44(4), 597-600.
Brown, G. E., Brown, D., & Ramos, J. (1981). Effects of a laughing versus a nonlaughing model
on humor responses in college students. Psychological Reports, 48(1), 35-40.
Brown, G. E., Wheeler, K. J., & Cash, M. (1980). The effects of a laughing versus a non-
laughing model on humor responses in preschool children. Journal of Experimental Child
Psychology, 29(2), 334-339.
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universal* in language usage. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Brown, R. B., & Keegan, D. (1999). Humor in the hotel kitchen. Humor: International Journal
of Humor Research, 12(1), 47-70.
Brown, S. L., & Schwartz, G. E. (1980). Relationships between facial electromyography and
subjective experience during affective imagery. Biological Psychology, 11, 49-62.
Brownell, H. H., & Gardner, H. (1988). Neuropsychological insights into humour. In J. Durant
& J. Miller (Eds.), Laughing matters: A serious look at humour (pp. 17-34). Essex, England:
Longman Scientific and Technical.
REFERENCES
Brownell, H. H., Michel, D., Powelson, J., & Gardner, H. (1983). Surprise but not coherence:
Sensitivity to verbal humor in right-hemisphere patients. Brain & Language, 18(\), 20-27.
Brownell, H. H., & Stringfellow, A. (2000). Cognitive perspectives on humor comprehension
after brain injury. In L. T. Connor & L. K. Obler (Eds.), Neurobehavior of language and cog-
nition: Studies of normal aging and brain damage (pp. 241-258). Boston: Kluwer Academic.
Bruehl, S., Carlson, C. R., & McCubbin, J. A. (1993). Two brief interventions for acute pain.
Pain, 54(\\ 29-36.
Bryant, J. (1977). Degree of hostility in squelches as a factor in humour appreciation. In A. J.
Chapman & H. C. Foot (Eds.), It's a funny thing, humour (pp. 321-327). Oxford: Perga-
mon Press.
Bryant, J., Brown, D., Parks, S. L., & Zillmann, D. (1983). Children's imitation of a ridiculed
model. Human Communication Research, 10(2), 243-255.
Bryant, J., Brown, D., Silberberg, A. R., & Elliott, S. M. (1981). Effects of humorous illustra-
tions in college textbooks. Human Communication Research, 8(1), 43-57.
Bryant, J., Comisky, P. W., Crane, J. S., & Zillmann, D. (1980). Relationship between college
teachers' use of humor in the classroom and students' evaluations of their teachers. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 72(4), 511-519.
Bryant, J., & Zillmann, D. (1989). Using humor to promote learning in the classroom. In
P. E. McGhee (Ed.), Humor and children's development: A guide to practical applications
(pp. 49-78). New York: Haworth Press.
Bryk, A. S., & Raudenbush, S. W. (1992). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analy-
sis methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Buckman, E. S. (Ed.). (1994). The handbook of humor: Clinical applications in psychotherapy.
Melbourne, FL: Robert E. Krieger.
Buhrmester, D., Furman, W., Wittenberg, M. T., & Reis, H. T. (1988). Five domains of inter-
personal competence in peer relationships. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 57(6),
991-1008.
Burling, R. (1993). Primate calls, human language, and nonverbal communication. Current
Anthropology, 34(1), 25-53.
Buss, A. H., & Plomin, R. (1984). Temperament: Early developing personality traits. Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Buss, D. M. (1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested
in 37 cultures. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12(1-49).
Buss, D. M., & Kenrick, D. T. (1998). Evolutionary social psychology. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T.
Fiske & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (4th ed., Vol. 2, pp. 982-1026).
Boston: McGraw-Hill.
Butovskaya, M. L., & Kozintsev, A. G. (1996). A neglected form of quasi-aggression in apes:
Possible relevance for the origins of humor. Current Anthropology, 37(4), 716-717.
Byrne, D. (1956). The relationship between humor and the expression of hostility. Journal of
Abnormal & Social Psychology, 53, 84-89.
Byrne, D. (1961). Some inconsistencies in the effect of motivation arousal on humor prefer-
ences. Journal of Abnormal & Social Psychology, 62, 158-160.
Cacioppo, J. T, Berntson, G. G., Larsen, J. T, Poehlmann, K. M., & Ito, T. A. (2000). The
psychophysiology of emotion. In M. Lewis & J. M. Haviland-Jones (Eds.), Handbook of
emotions (2nd ed., pp. 173-191). New York: Guilford.
Cann, A., & Calhoun, L. G. (2001). Perceived personality associations with differences in sense
of humor: Stereotypes of hypothetical others with high or low senses of humor. Humor:
International Journal of Humor Research, 14(2), 117-130.
REFERENCES 37'
Cann, A., Calhoun, L. G., & Banks, J. S. (1997). On the role of humor appreciation in inter-
personal attraction: It's no joking matter. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research,
10(1), 77-89.
Cann, A., Calhoun, L. G., & Nance, J. T. (2000). Exposure to humor before and after an
unpleasant stimulus: Humor as a preventative or a cure. Humor: International Journal of
Humor Research, 13(2), 177-191.
Cann, A., Holt, K., & Calhoun, L. G. (1999). The roles of humor and sense of humor in
responses to stressors. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 12(2), 177-193.
Cantor, J. R. (1976). What is funny to whom? The role of gender. Journal of Communication,
26(3), 164-172.
Cantor, J. R., Bryant, J., & Zillmann, D. (1974). Enhancement of humor appreciation by trans-
ferred excitation. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 30(6), 812-821.
Caron, J. E. (2002). From ethology to aesthetics: Evolution as a theoretical paradigm for
research on laughter, humor, and other comic phenomena. Humor: International Journal of
Humor Research, 75(3), 245-281.
Carroll, J. L. (1989). Changes in humor appreciation of college students in the last twenty-five
years. Psychological Reports, 55(3, Pt 1), 863-866.
Carroll, J. L. (1990). The relationship between humor appreciation and perceived physical
health. Psychology: A Journal of Human Behavior, 27(2), 34-37.
Carroll, J. L., & Shmidt, J. L. (1992). Correlation between humorous coping style and health.
Psychological Reports, 70(2), 402.
Carson, D. K., Skarpness, L. R., Schultz, N. W., & McGhee, P. E. (1986). Temperament and
communicative competence as predictors of young children's humor. Merrill-Palmer Quar-
terly, 52(4), 415^26.
Carstensen, L. L., Gottman, J. M., & Levenson, R. W. (1995). Emotional behavior in long-
term marriage. Psychology and Aging, 10(1), 140-149.
Carver, C. S., Pozo, C., Harris, S. D., Noriega, V., Scheier, M. E, Robinson, D. S., et al. (1993).
How coping mediates the effect of optimism on distress: A study of women with early
stage breast cancer. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 65(2), 375-390.
Carver, C. S., Scheier, M. E, & Weintraub, J. K. (1989). Assessing coping strategies: A theo-
retically based approach. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 56(2), 267-283.
Casadonte, D. (2003). A note on the neuro-mathematics of laughter. Humor: International
Journal of Humor Research, 16(2), 133-156.
Cashion, J. L., Cody, M. J., & Erickson, K. V. (1986). "You'll love this one . . .": An exploration
into joke-prefacing devices. Journal of Language & Social Psychology, 5(4), 303-3 12.
Cattell, R. B. (1947). Confirmation and clarification of primary personality factors. Psychomet-
rica, 12, 197-220.
Cattell, R. B., & Luborsky, L. B. (1947). Personality factors in response to humor. Journal of
Abnormal & Social Psychology, 42, 402-421.
Cattell, R. B., & Tollefson, D. L. (1966). The IPAT humor test of personality. Champaign, IL:
Institute for Personality and Ability Testing.
Celso, B. G., Ebener, D. J., & Burkhead, E. J. (2003). Humor coping, health status, and life
satisfaction among older adults residing in assisted living facilities. Aging 6" Mental Health,
7(6), 438-445.
Chafe, W. (1987). Humor as a disabling mechanism. American Behavioral Scientist, 30(1),
16-25.
Chapman, A. J. (1973a). An electromyographic study of apprehension about evaluation. Psy-
chological Reports, 33, 811-814.
REFERENCES
Chapman, A. J. (1973b). Social facilitation of laughter in children. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 9(6), 528-541.
Chapman, A. J. (1975a). Eye contact, physical proximity and laughter: A re-examination of the
equilibrium model of social intimacy. Social Behavior & Personality, 3(2), 143-155.
Chapman, A. J. (1975b). Humorous laughter in children. Journal of Personality & Social Psy-
chology, 31(1), 42^9.
Chapman, A. J. (1976). Social aspects of humorous laughter. In A. J. Chapman & H. C. Foot
(Eds.), Humour and laughter: Theory, research, and applications (pp. 155-185). London: John
Wiley & Sons.
Chapman, A. J. (1983). Humor and laughter in social interaction and some implications for
humor research. In P. E. McGhee & J. H. Goldstein (Eds.), Handbook of humor research,
Vol. 1: Basic issues (pp. 135-157). New York: Springer- Verlag.
Chapman, A. J., & Foot, H. C. (1976). Humour and laughter: Theory, research and applications.
Oxford, England: John Wiley & Sons.
Chapman, A. J., & Gadfield, N. J. (1976). Is sexual humor sexist? Journal of Communication,
25(3), 141-153.
Chapman, A. J., Smith, J. R., & Foot, H. C. (1980). Humour, laughter, and social interaction.
In P. E. McGhee & A. J. Chapman (Eds.), Children's humour (pp. 141-179). Chichester:
John Wiley & Sons.
Chapman, A. J., & Wright, D. S. (1976). Social enhancement of laughter: An experimental
analysis of some companion variables. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 21(2),
201-218.
Chattopadhyay, A., & Basu, K. (1990). Humor in advertising: The moderating role of prior
brand evaluation. Journal of Marketing Research, 27(4), 466-476.
Check, J. F. (1986). Positive traits of the effective teacher-negative traits of the ineffective one.
Education, 106(3), 326-334.
Chen, G., & Martin, R. A. (in press). Humor styles, coping humor, and mental health among
Chinese university students. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research.
Cherkas, L., Hochberg, E, MacGregor, A. J., Snieder, H., & Spector, T. D. (2000). Happy fam-
ilies: A twin study of humour. Twin Research, 3, 17-22.
Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic structures. The Hague: Mouton.
Chomsky, N. (1971). Deep structure, surface structure, and semantic interpretation. In
D. D. Steinberg & L. A. Jakobovits (Eds.), Semantics: An interdisciplinary reader in
philosophy, linguistics, and psychology (pp. 183-216). Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Christie, I. C., & Friedman, B. H. (2004). Autonomic specificity of discrete emotion and dimen-
sions of affective space: A multivariate approach. International Journal of Psychophysiology,
51, 143-153.
Clabby, J. F. (1980). The wit: A personality analysis. Journal of Personality Assessment, 44(3),
307-310.
Clark, A., Seidler, A., & Miller, M. (2001). Inverse association between sense of humor and
coronary heart disease. International Journal of Cardiology, 80, 87-88.
Clark, H. H., & Gerrig, R. J. (1984). On the pretense theory of irony. Journal of Experimental
Psychology: General, 113, 121-126.
Clouse, R. W, & Spurgeon, K. L. (1995). Corporate analysis of humor. Psychology: A Journal
of Human Behavior, 32(1^), 1-24.
Cogan, R., Cogan, D., Waltz, W, & McCue, M. (1987). Effects of laughter and relaxation on
discomfort thresholds. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 10(2), 139-144.
REFERENCES 3fi
Cohan, C. L., & Bradbury, T. N. (1997). Negative life events, marital interaction, and the
longitudinal course of newlywed marriage. Journal of 'Personality & Social Psychology, 75(1),
114-128.
Cohen, S., & Edwards, J. R. (1989). Personality characteristics as moderators of the relation-
ship between stress and disorder. In R. W. J. Neufeld (Ed.), Advances in the investigation of
psychological stress (pp. 235-283). New York: Wiley.
Collinson, D. L. (1988). "Engineering humour": Masculinity, joking and conflict in shop-floor
relations. Organization Studies, 9(2), 181-199.
Colston, H. L., Giora, R., & Katz, A. (2000). Joke comprehension: Salience and context effects. Paper
presented at the 7th International Pragmatics Conference, Budapest.
Consalvo, C. M. (1989). Humor in management: No laughing matter. Humor: International
Journal of Humor Research, 2(3), 285-297.
Conway, M., & Dube, L. (2002). Humor in persuasion on threatening topics: Effectiveness is
a function of audience sex role orientation. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(7),
863-873.
Cook, K. S., & Rice, E. (2003). Social exchange theory. In J. Delamater (Ed.), Handbook of social
psychology (pp. 53-76). New York: Plenum.
Cook, M., Young, A., Taylor, D., & Bedford, A. P. (1998). Personality correlates of alcohol con-
sumption. Personality & Individual Differences, 24, 641-647.
Cornett, C. E. (1986). Learning through laughter: Humor in the classroom. Bloomington, IN: Phi
Delta Kappa Educational Foundation.
Corruble, E., Bronnec, M., Falissard, B., & Hardy, P. (2004). Defense styles in depressed suicide
attempters. Psychiatry & Clinical Neurosciences, 5#(3), 285-288.
Coser, R. L. (1960). Laughter among colleagues: A study of the functions of humor among the
staff of a mental hospital. Psychiatry, 23, 81-95.
Coulson, A. S. (2001). Cognitive synergy. In M. J. Apter (Ed.), Motivational styles in everyday
life: A guide to reversal theory (pp. 229-248). Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association.
Coulson, S., & Kutas, M. (2001). Getting it: Human event-related brain response to jokes in
good and poor comprehenders. Neuroscience Letters, 316, 71-74.
Cousins, N. (1976). Anatomy of an illness (as perceived by the patient). New England Journal
of Medicine, 295, 1458-1463.
Cousins, N. (1979). Anatomy of an illness as perceived by the patient: Reflections on healing and regen-
eration. New York: W. W. Norton.
Cousins, N. (1985). Therapeutic value of laughter. Integrative Psychiatry, 3(2), 112.
Craik, K. H., Lampert, M. D., & Nelson, A. J. (1996). Sense of humor and styles of every-
day humorous conduct. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 9($-$), 273-
302.
Craik, K. H., & Ware, A. P. (1998). Humor and personality in everyday life. In W. Ruch (Ed.),
The sense of humor: Explorations of a personality characteristic (pp. 63-94). Berlin, Germany:
Walter de Gruyter.
Crawford, M. (1989). Humor in conversational context: Beyond biases in the study of gender
and humor. In R. K. Unger (Ed.), Representations: Social constructions of gender (pp. 155-166).
Amityville, NY: Baywood Publishing.
Crawford, M. (1992). Just kidding: Gender and conversational humor. In R. Barreca (Ed.), New
perspectives on -women and comedy (pp. 23-37). Philadelphia, PA: Gordon and Breach.
Crawford, M. (2003). Gender and humor in social context. Journal of Pragmatics, 35(9),
1413-1430.
REFERENCES
Crawford, M., & Gressley, D. (1991). Creativity, caring, and context: Women's and men's
accounts of humor preferences and practices. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 15(2), 217-
231.
Creusere, M. A. (1999). Theories of adults' understanding and use of irony and sarcasm: Appli-
cations to and evidence from research with children. Developmental Review, 19(2), 213-
262.
Creusere, M. A. (2000). A developmental test of theoretical perspectives on the understanding
of verbal irony: Children's recognition of allusion and pragmatic insincerity. Metaphor 6"
Symbol, 1 5(1-2), 29-45.
Culver, J. L., Arena, P. L., Wimberly, S. R., Antoni, M. H., & Carver, C. S. (2004). Coping
among African-American, Hispanic, and non-Hispanic White women recently treated for
early stage breast cancer. Psychology & Health, 19(2), 157-166.
Cunningham, W. A., & Derks, P. (2005). Humor appreciation and latency of comprehension.
Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 18(4), 389-403.
Damasio, A. R. (1994). Descartes' error: Emotion, reasoning, and the human brain. New York:
G. P. Putnam.
Damico, S. B., & Purkey, W. W. (1978). Class clowns: A study of middle school students.
American Educational Research Journal, 15(3), 391-398.
Daniel, H. J., O'Brien, K. E, McCabe, R. B., & Quinter, V. E. (1985). Values in mate selec-
tion: A 1984 campus survey. College Student Journal, 19(1), 44-50.
Danzer, A., Dale, J. A., & Klions, H. L. (1990). Effect of exposure to humorous stimuli on
induced depression. Psychological Reports, 66(3, Pt 1), 1027-1036.
Darwin, C. (1872). The expression of the emotions in man and animals. London: Murray.
Davidson, I. F. W. K., & Brown, W. I. (1989). Using humour in counselling mentally retarded
clients: A preliminary study. International Journal for the Advancement of Counselling, 12,
93-104.
Davies, A. P., & Apter, M. J. (1980). Humour and its effect on learning in children. In P. E.
McGhee & A.J. Chapman (Eds.), Children's humour (pp. 237-253). Chichester: John Wiley
& Sons.
Davies, C. (1990a). Ethnic humor around the world: A comparative analysis. Bloomington, IN:
Indiana University Press.
Davies, C. (1990b). An explanation of Jewish jokes about Jewish women. Humor: International
Journal of Humor Research, 3, 363-378.
Davis, G. A., & Subkoviak, M. J. (1975). Multidimensional analysis of a personality-based test
of creative potential. Journal of Educational Measurement, 12(1), 37-43.
Davis, J. M., & Farina, A. (1970). Humor appreciation as social communication. Journal of Per-
sonality & Social Psychology, 15(2), 175-178.
Day, H. I., & Langevin, R. (1969). Curiosity and intelligence: Two necessary conditions for a
high level of creativity. Journal of Special Education, 3, 263-268.
de Groot, A., Kaplan, J., Rosenblatt, E., Dews, S., & Winner, E. (1995). Understanding versus
discriminating nonliteral utterances: Evidence for a dissociation. Metaphor 6" Symbol, 10(4),
255-273.
de Koning, E., & Weiss, R. L. (2002). The Relational Humor Inventory: Functions of humor
in close relationships. American Journal of Family Therapy, 30(1), 1-18.
Deal, T. E. D., & Kennedy, A. A. (1982). Corporate cultures: The rites and rituals of corporate life.
Reading, MA: Addison- Wesley.
Deaner, S. L., & McConatha, J. T. (1993). The relationship of humor to depression and per-
sonality. Psychological Reports, 72(3, Pt 1), 755-763.
REFERENCES
Decker, W. H. (1987). Managerial humor and subordinate satisfaction. Social Behavior &
Personality, 15(2), 225-232.
Decker, W. H., & Rotondo, D. M. (2001). Relationships among gender, type of humor, and
perceived leader effectiveness. Journal of Managerial Issues, 13(4), 450^465.
Deckers, L. (1993). On the validity of a weight-judging paradigm for the study of humor.
Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 6(1), 43-56.
Deckers, L. (1998). Influence of mood on humor. In W. Ruch (Ed.), The sense of humor: Explo-
rations of a personality characteristic (pp. 309-328). Berlin, Germany: Walter de Gruyter.
Deckers, L., & Buttram, R. T. (1990). Humor as a response to incongruities within or between
schemata. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 3(1), 53-64.
Deckers, L., & Carr, D. E. (1986). Cartoons varying in low-level pain ratings, not aggression
ratings, correlate positively with funniness ratings. Motivation & Emotion, 10(3), 207-216.
Deckers, L., & Edington, J. (1979). Facial expressions of mirth as a log-log Junction of the degree of
incongruity in a psychophysical task. Paper presented at the Midwestern Psychological Asso-
ciation Convention, Chicago.
Deckers, L., Edington, J., & VanCleave, G. (1981). Mirth as a function of incongruities in
judged and unjudged dimensions of psychophysical tasks. Journal of General Psychology,
/05(Pt 2), 225-233.
Deckers, L., & Hricik, D. (1984). Orienting and humor responses: A synthesis. Motivation &
Emotion, 8(3), 183-204.
Deckers, L., Jenkins, S., & Gladfelter, E. (1977). Incongruity versus tension relief: Hypothe-
ses of humor. Motivation 6" Emotion, 1, 261-272.
Deckers, L., & Kizer, P. (1974). A note on weight discrepancy and humor. Journal of Psychol-
ogy, 86(2), 309-312.
Deckers, L., & Kizer, P. (1975). Humor and the incongruity hypothesis. Journal of Psychology,
90(2), 215-218.
Deckers, L., Pell, C., & Lundahl, B. (1990). Smile amplitude or duration as an indicator of humor?
Paper presented at the Midwestern Psychological Association Convention, Chicago.
Deckers, L., & Ruch, W. (1992 a). Sensation seeking and the Situational Humour Response
Questionnaire (SHRQ): Its relationship in American and German samples. Personality &
Individual Differences, 13(9), 1051-1054.
Deckers, L., & Ruch, W. (1992b). The Situational Humour Response Questionnaire (SHRQ)
as a test of "sense of humour": A validity study in the field of humour appreciation. Per-
sonality & Individual Differences, 13(10), 1149-1152.
Deckers, L., & Salais, D. (1983). Humor as a negatively accelerated function of the degree of
incongruity. Motivation & Emotion, 7(4), 357-363.
Deffenbacher, J. L., Deitz, S. R., & Hazaleus, S. L. (1981). Effects of humor and test anxiety
on performance, worry, and emotionality in naturally occurring exams. Cognitive Therapy
6- Research, 5(2), 225-228.
Deinzer, R., Kleineidam, C., Stiller-Winkler, R., Idel, H., & Bachg, D. (2000). Prolonged
reduction of salivary immunoglobulin A (slgA) after major academic exam. International
Journal of Psychophysiology, 37(3), 219-232.
DeNeve, K. M. (1999). Happy as an extraverted clam? The role of personality for subjective
well-being. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 8(5), 141-144.
Derks, P. (1987). Humor production: An examination of three models of creativity. Journal of
Creative Behavior, 21, 325-326.
Derks, P., & Arora, S. (1993). Sex and salience in the appreciation of cartoon humor. Humor:
International Journal of Humor Research, 6(1), 57-69.
REFERENCES
Derks, P., & Berkowitz, J. (1989). Some determinants of attitudes toward a joker. Humor: Inter-
national Journal of Humor Research, 2(4), 385-396.
Derks, P., Gardner, J. B., & Agarwal, R. (1998). Recall of innocent and tendentious humorous
material. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 11(1), 5-19.
Derks, P., Gillikin, L. S., Bartolome-Rull, D. S., & Bogart, E. H. (1997). Laughter and elec-
troencephalographic activity. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 10(3), 285-
300.
Derks, P., & Hervas, D. (1988). Creativity in humor production: Quantity and quality in diver-
gent thinking. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 26(1), 37-39.
Derks, P., Kalland, S., & Etgen, M. (1995). The effect of joke type and audience response on
the reaction to a joker: Replication and extension. Humor: International Journal of Humor
Research, 5(4), 327-337.
Derks, P., Staley, R. E., & Haselton, M. G. (1998). "Sense" of humor: Perception, intelligence,
or expertise? In W. Ruch (Ed.), The sense of humor: Explorations of a personality characteris-
tic (pp. 143-158). Berlin, Germany: Walter de Gruyter & Co, 1998, x, 498.
Dewitte, S., & Verguts, T. (2001). Being funny: A selectionist account of humor production.
Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 14(1), 37-53.
Dews, S., Kaplan, J., & Winner, E. (1995). Why not say it directly? The social functions of
irony. Discourse Processes, 19(3), 347-367.
Dews, S., Winner, E., Kaplan,}., Rosenblatt, E., Hunt, M., Lim, K., et al. (1996). Children's
understanding of the meaning and functions of verbal irony. Child Development, 67(6),
3071-3085.
Dienstbier, R. A. (1995). The impact of humor on energy, tension, task choices, and attribu-
tions: Exploring hypotheses from toughness theory. Motivation & Emotion, 19(4), 255-
267.
Dillon, K. M., Minchoff, B., & Baker, K. H. (1985). Positive emotional states and enhance-
ment of the immune system. International Journal of Psychiatry in Medicine, /5(1), 13-18.
Dillon, K. M., & Totten, M. C. (1989). Psychological factors, immunocompetence, and health
of breast-feeding mothers and their infants. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 150(2), 155-
162.
Dixon, N. E (1980). Humor: A cognitive alternative to stress? In I. G. Sarason & C. D. Spiel-
berger (Eds.), Stress and anxiety (Vol. 7, pp. 281-289). Washington, DC: Hemisphere.
D'Onofrio, B. M., Turkheimer, E. N., Eaves, L. J., Corey, L. A., Berg, K., Solaas, M. H., et al.
(2003). The role of the Children of Twins design in elucidating causal relations between
parent characteristics and child outcomes. Journal of Child Psychology 6" Psychiatry, 44(8),
1130-1144.
Donoghue, E. E., McCarrey, M. W, & Clement, R. (1983). Humour appreciation as a func-
tion of canned laughter, a mirthful companion, and field dependence: Facilitation and
inhibitory effects. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 15(1), 150-162.
Doris, J., & Fierman, E. (1956). Humor and anxiety. Journal of Abnormal fc Social Psychology,
53, 59-62.
Doris, P. (2004). The humor styles questionnaire: Investigating the role of humor in psychological
well-being. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Western Ontario, London,
Ontario.
Dorz, S., Novara, C., Sica, C., & Sanavio, E. (2003). Predicting burnout among HIV/AIDS
and oncology health care workers. Psychology & Health, 18(5), 677-684.
du Pre, A. (1998). Humor and the healing arts: A multimethod analysis of humor use in health care.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
REFERENCES
Duchowny, M. S. (1983). Pathological disorders of laughter. In P. E. McGhee & J. H.
Goldstein (Eds.), Handbook of humor research, Vol. 2: Applied studies (pp. 89-108). New York:
Springer- Verlag.
Dunbar, R. I. M. (1996). Grooming, gossip and the evolution of language. London: Faber and Faber.
Duncan, C. P., & Nelson, J. E. (1985). Effects of humor in a radio advertising experiment.
Journal of Advertising, 14(1), 33-40.
Duncan, C. P., Nelson, J. E., & Frontzak, N. L. (1984). The effect of humor on advertising
comprehension. In T. C. Kinnear (Ed.), Advances in consumer research (pp. 432-437).
Chicago: Association for Consumer Research.
Duncan, W. J., & Feisal, J. P. (1989). No laughing matter: Patterns of humor in the workplace.
Organizational Dynamics, .77(4), 18-30.
Duncan, W. J., Smeltzer, L. R., & Leap, T. L. (1990). Humor and work: Applications of joking
behavior to management. Journal of Management, 16(2), 255-278.
Dworkin, E. S., & Efran, J. S. (1967). The angered: Their susceptibility to varieties of humor.
Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 6(2), 233-236.
Dwyer, T. (1991). Humor, power, and change in organizations. Human Relations, 44(1), 1-19.
Eagly, A. H., Ashmore, R. D., Makhijani, M. G., & Longo, L. C. (1991). What is beautiful is
good, but . . . : A meta-analytic review of research on the physical attractiveness stereo-
type. Psychological Bulletin, 110, 109-128.
Eastman, M. (1936). Enjoyment of laughter. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Ekman, P., Davidson, R. J., & Friesen, W. V. (1990). The Duchenne smile: Emotional expres-
sion and brain physiology: II. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 58(1), 342-353.
Ekman, P., & Friesen, W. V. (1978). Facial action coding system. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting
Psychologists Press.
Ellis, A. (1977). Fun as psychotherapy. Rational Living, 12(1), 2-6.
Ellis, A., & Grieger, R. (1986). Handbook of rational-emotive therapy. New York: Springer.
Engel, G. L. (1977). The need for a new medical model: A challenge for biomedicine. Science,
196(4286), 129-136.
Epstein, S., & Smith, R. (1956). Repression and insight as related to reaction to cartoons.
Journal of Consulting Psychology, 20, 391-395.
Ervin-Tripp, S. M. (1993). Conversational discourse. In J. B. Gleason & N. B. Ratner (Eds.),
Psycholinguistics (pp. 237-270). Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Esler, M. D. (1998). Mental stress, panic disorder and the heart. Stress Medicine, 14(4), 237-
243.
Eysenck, H. J. (1942). The appreciation of humour: an experimental and theoretical study.
British Journal of Psychology, 32, 295-309.
Eysenck, H. J. (1943). An experimental analysis of five tests of "appreciation of humor." Edu-
cational & Psychological Measurement, 3, 191-214.
Eysenck, H. J. (1972). Foreword. InJ. H. Goldstein & P. E. McGhee (Eds.), The psychology of
humor: Theoretical perspectives and empirical issues (pp. xii-xvii). New York: Academic Press.
Eysenck, H. J. (1990). Biological dimensions of personality. In L. A. Pervin (Ed.), Handbook of
personality: Theory and research (pp. 244-276). New York: Guilford.
Fabrizi, M. S., & Pollio, H. R. (1987a). Are funny teenagers creative? Psychological Reports, 61(3),
751-761.
Fabrizi, M. S., & Pollio, H. R. (1987b). A naturalistic study of humorous activity in a third,
seventh, and eleventh grade classroom. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 33(1), 107-128.
Fagen, R. (1981). Animal play behavior. New York: Oxford University Press.
Farrelly, E, & Brandsma, J. (1974). Provocative therapy. Cupertino, CA: Meta Publications.
REFERENCES
Farrelly, E, & Lynch, M. (1987). Humor in provocative therapy. In W. F. Fry & W. A. Salameh
(Eds.), Handbook of humor and psychotherapy: Advances in the clinical use of humor (pp. 8 1-106).
Sarasota, FL: Professional Resource Exchange.
Feingold, A. (1981). Testing equity as an explanation for romantic couples "mismatched" on
physical attractiveness. Psychological Reports, 49(1), 247-250.
Feingold, A. (1982). Measuring humor: A pilot study. Perceptual & Motor Skills, 54(3, Pt 1),
986.
Feingold, A. (1983). Measuring humor ability: Revision and construct validation of the Humor
Perceptiveness Test. Perceptual & Motor Skills, 55(1), 159-166.
Feingold, A. (1992). Gender differences in mate selection preferences: A test of the parental
investment model. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 125-139.
Feingold, A., & Mazzella, R. (1991). Psychometric intelligence and verbal humor ability. Per-
sonality 6" Individual Differences, 12(5), 427-435.
Feingold, A., & Mazzella, R. (1993). Preliminary validation of a multidimensional model of
wittiness. Journal of Personality, 61($), 439-456.
Felmlee, D. H. (1995). Fatal attractions: Affection and disaffection in intimate relationships.
Journal of Social & Personal Relationships, 12(2), 295-3 11.
Ferris, D. R. (1972). Humor and creativity: Research and theory. Journal of Creative Behavior,
6, 75-79.
Fine, G. A. (1977). Humour in situ: The role of humour in small group culture. In A. J.
Chapman & H. C. Foot (Eds.), It's a fanny thing, humour (pp. 315-318). Oxford: Perga-
mon Press.
Fisher, S., & Fisher, R. L. (1981). Pretend the 'world is funny and forever: A psychological analysis
of comedians, clowns, and actors. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Flugel, J. C. (1954). Humor and laughter. In G. Lindzey (Ed.), Handbook of social psychology.
Cambridge, MA: Addison- Wesley.
Fogel, A., Dickson, K. L., Hsu, H.-C., Messinger, D., Nelson-Goens, G. C., & Nwokah,
E. E. (1997). Communication of smiling and laughter in mother-infant play: Research on
emotion from a dynamic systems perspective. In K. C. Barrett (Ed.), The communication of
emotion: Current research from diverse perspectives (pp. 5-24). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Foley, E., Matheis, R., & Schaefer, C. (2002). Effect of forced laughter on mood. Psychological
Reports, 90(1), 184.
Forabosco, G. (1992). Cognitive aspects of the humor process: The concept of incongruity.
Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 5(1-2), 45-68.
Forabosco, G. (1994). "Seriality" and appreciation of jokes. Humor: International Journal of
Humor Research, 7(4), 351-375.
Forabosco, G. (1998). The ill side of humor: Pathological conditions and sense of humor. In
W. Ruch (Ed.), The sense of humor: Explorations of a personality characteristic (pp. 271-292).
Berlin, Germany: Walter de Gruyter.
Forabosco, G., & Ruch, W. (1994). Sensation seeking, social attitudes and humor appreciation
in Italy. Personality <t? Individual Differences, 75(4), 515-528.
Ford, C. V, & Spaulding, R. C. (1973). The Pueblo incident: A comparison of factors related
to coping with extreme stress. Archives of General Psychiatry, 29(3), 340-343.
Ford, T. E. (2000). Effects of sexist humor on tolerance of sexist events. Personality & Social
Psychology Bulletin, 26(9), 1094-1107.
Ford, T. E., & Ferguson, M. A. (2004). Social consequences of disparagement humor: A prej-
udiced norm theory. Personality 6" Social Psychology Review, 8(1), 79-94.
REFERENCES
Ford, T. E., Ferguson, M. A., Brooks, J. L., & Hagadone, K. M. (2004). Coping sense of humor
reduces effects of stereotype threat on women's math performance. Personality & Social Psy-
chology Bulletin, 30(5), 643-653.
Ford, T. E., Wentzel, E. R., & Lorion, J. (2001). Effects of exposure to sexist humor on per-
ceptions of normative tolerance of sexism. European Journal of Social Psychology, 31(6),
677-691.
Forester, J. (2004). Responding to critical moments with humor, recognition, and hope. Nego-
tiation Journal, 20(2), 221-237.
Fortson, S. B., & Brown, W. E. (1998). Best and worst university instructors: The opinions of
graduate students. College Student Journal, 32(4), 572-576.
Foster, J. A., & Reid, J. (1983). Humor and its relationship to students' assessments of the coun-
sellor. Canadian Counsellor, 17(3), 124-129.
Foster, P. S., Webster, D. G., & Williamson, J. (2002). The psychophysiological differentiation
of actual, imagined, and recollected mirth. Imagination, Cognition 6" Personality, 22(2),
163-180.
Fraley, B., & Aron, A. (2004). The effect of a shared humorous experience on closeness in initial
encounters. Personal Relationships, 11(1), 61-78.
Francis, L. E. (1994). Laughter, the best mediation: Humor as emotion management in inter-
action. Symbolic Interaction, 17(2), 147-163.
Frank, M. G., & Ekman, P. (1993). Not all smiles are created equal: The differences between
enjoyment and nonenjoyment smiles. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 6(\),
9-26.
Frankl, V. E. (1960). Paradoxical intention: A logotherapeutic technique. American Journal of
Psychotherapy, 14, 520-535.
Frankl, V. E. (1984). Man's search for meaning. New York: Washington Square Press.
Franzini, L. R. (2000). Humor in behavior therapy. Behavior Therapist, 23(2), 25-29, 41.
Franzini, L. R. (2001). Humor in therapy: The case for training therapists in its uses and risks.
Journal of General Psychology, 128(2), 170-193.
Fredrickson, B. L. (1998). What good are positive emotions? Review of General Psychology, 2(3),
300-319.
Fredrickson, B. L. (2001). The role of positive emotions in positive psychology: The broaden-
and-build theory of positive emotions. American Psychologist, 55(3), 218-226.
Fredrickson, B. L., & Branigan, C. (2005). Positive emotions broaden the scope of attention
and thought-action repertoires. Cognition & Emotion, 19(3), 313-332.
Fredrickson, B. L., & Levenson, R. W. (1998). Positive emotions speed recovery from the car-
diovascular sequelae of negative emotions. Cognition 6" Emotion, 12(2), 191-220.
Fredrickson, B. L., Mancuso, R. A., Branigan, C., & Tugade, M. M. (2000). The undoing effect
of positive emotions. Motivation and Emotion, 24(4), 237-258.
Freiheit, S. R., Overholser, J. C., & Lehnert, K. L. (1998). The association between humor and
depression in adolescent psychiatric inpatients and high school students. Journal of Adoles-
cent Research, 13(1), 32-48.
Freud, S. (1928). Humour. International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 9, 1-6.
Freud, S. (1935). A general introduction to psycho-analysis. New York: Liveright Publishing.
Freud, S. (1960 [1905]). Jokes and their relation to the unconscious. New York: Norton.
Frewen, P. A., Brinker, J., Martin, R. A., & Dozois, D. J. A. (in press). Humor styles
and personality-vulnerability to depression. Humor: International Journal of Humor
Research.
REFERENCES
Fridlund, A. J., & Loftis, J. M. (1990). Relations between tickling and humorous laughter: Pre-
liminary support for the Darwin-Hecker hypothesis. Biological Psychology, 30(2), 141-150.
Fried, I., Wilson, C. L., MacDonald, K. A., & Behnke, E. J. (1998). Electric current stimulates
laughter. Nature, 391(66-68), 650.
Friedman, H. S., Tucker, J. S., Tomlinson-Keasey, C., Schwartz, J. E., et al. (1993). Does child-
hood personality predict longevity? Journal of Personality 6" Social Psychology, 65(1),
176-185.
Fry, D. P. (2005). Rough-and-tumble social play in humans. In A. D. Pellegrini & P. K. Smith
(Eds.), The nature of play: Great apes and humans (pp. 54—85). New York: Guilford Press.
Fry, P. S. (1995). Perfectionism, humor, and optimism as moderators of health outcomes and
determinants of coping styles of women executives. Genetic, Social, & General Psychology
Monographs, 121(2), 211-245.
Fry, W. F. (1963). Sweet madness: A study of humor. Palo Alto, CA: Pacific Books.
Fry, W. F. (1994). The biology of humor. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 7(2),
111-126.
Fry, W. E, & Rader, C. (1977). The respiratory components of mirthful laughter. Journal of
Biological Psychology, 19(2), 39-50.
Fry, W. E, & Salameh, W. A. (Eds.). (1987). Handbook of humor and psychotherapy: Advances in
the clinical use of humor. Sarasota, FL: Professional Resource Exchange.
Fry, W. E, & Salameh, W. A. (Eds.). (1993). Advances in humor and psychotherapy. Sarasota, FL:
Professional Resource Press.
Fuhr, M. (2001). Some aspects of form and function of humor in adolescence. Humor: Inter-
national Journal of Humor Research, 14(1), 25-36.
Fiihr, M. (2002). Coping humor in early adolescence. Humor: International Journal of Humor
Research, -75(3), 283-304.
Fuller, R. G., & Sheehy-Skeffington, A. (1974). Effects of group laughter on responses to
humorous material: A replication and extension. Psychological Reports, 35(1, Pt 2), 531-534.
Gallivan, J. (1992). Group differences in appreciation of feminist humor. Humor: International
Journal of Humor Research, 5(4), 369-374.
Galloway, G., & Cropley, A. (1999). Benefits of humor for mental health: Empirical findings
and directions for further research. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 12(3),
301-314.
Gamble, J. (2001). Humor in apes. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 14(2),
163-179.
Garner, B. P. (1998). Play development from birth to age four. In D. P. Fromberg & D. Bergen
(Eds.), Play from birth to twelve and beyond: Contexts, perspectives, and meanings (pp. 1 3 7-145).
New York: Garland.
Gavanski, I. (1986). Differential sensitivity of humor ratings and mirth responses to cognitive
and affective components of the humor response. Journal of Personality 6" Social Psychology,
51(1), 209-214.
Gelb, B. D., & Zinkhan, G. M. (1986). Humor and advertising effectiveness after repeated
exposures to a radio commerical. Journal of Advertising, 15(2), 15-20.
Gelkopf, M., & Kreitler, S. (1996). Is humor only fun, an alternative cure or magic: The
cognitive therapeutic potential of humor. Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy, 10(\), 235-
254.
Gelkopf, M., Kreitler, S., & Sigal, M. (1993). Laughter in a psychiatric ward: Somatic, emo-
tional, social, and clinical influences on schizophrenic patients. Journal of Nervous & Mental
Disease, 181(5), 283-289.
REFERENCES
Gelkopf, M., & Sigal, M. (1995). It is not enough to have them laugh: Hostility, anger, and
humor-coping in schizophrenic patients. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research,
8(3), 273-284.
Gerber, W. S., & Routh, D. K. (1975). Humor response as related to violation of expectancies
and to stimulus intensity in a weight-judgment task. Perceptual & Motor Skills, 41(2),
673-674.
Gervais, M., & Wilson, D. S. (2005). The evolution and functions of laughter and humor: A
synthetic approach. Quarterly Review of Biology, 80(4), 395-430.
Gibbs, R. W. (1986). On the psycholinguistics of sarcasm. Journal of Experimental Psychology:
General, 115,3-15.
Gibbs, R. W. (1994). The poetics of mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gibson, D. E. (1994). Humor consulting: Laughs for power and profit in organizations. Humor:
International Journal of Humor Research, 7(4), 403-428.
Gilbert, D. T., Fiske, S. T., & Lindzey, G. (1998). The handbook of social psychology (4th ed.).
Boston: McGraw-Hill.
Gillikin, L. S., & Derks, P. L. (1991). Humor appreciation and mood in stroke patients. Cog-
nitive Rehabilitation, 9(5), 30-35.
Giora, R. (1985). A text-based analysis of non-narrative texts. Theoretical Linguistics, 12,
115-135.
Giora, R. (1991). On the cognitive aspects of the joke. Journal of Pragmatics, 16, 465-485.
Giora, R. (1995). On irony and negation. Discourse Processes, 19, 239-264.
Giora, R., & Fein, O. (1999). Irony comprehension: The graded salience hypothesis. Humor:
International Journal of Humor Research, /2(4), 425-436.
Giora, R., Fein, O., & Schwartz, T. (1998). Irony: Graded salience and indirect negation.
Metaphor and Symbol, 13, 83-101.
Godkewitsch, M. (1974). Correlates of humor: Verbal and nonverbal aesthetic reactions as func-
tions of semantic distance within adjective-noun pairs. In D. E. Berlyne (Ed.), Studies in
the new experimental aesthetics: Steps towards an objective psychology of aesthetic appreciation
(pp. 279-304). Washington, DC: Hemisphere.
Godkewitsch, M. (1976). Physiological and verbal indices of arousal in rated humour. In A. J.
Chapman & H. C. Foot (Eds.), Humor and laughter: Theory, research, and applications
(pp. 117-138). London: John Wiley & Sons.
Goel, V, & Dolan, R. J. (2001). The functional anatomy of humor: Segregating cognitive and
affective components. Nature Neuroscience, 4(3), 237-238.
Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual: Essays on face-to-face behavior. Garden City, NY: Anchor
Books.
Goldsmith, H. H., Buss, K. A., & Lemery, K. S. (1997). Toddler and childhood temperament:
Expanded content, stronger genetic evidence, new evidence for the importance of envi-
ronment. Developmental Psychology, 33(6), 891-905.
Goldsmith, H. H., Lemery, K. S., Buss, K. A., & Campos, J. J. (1999). Genetic analyses of focal
aspects of infant temperament. Developmental Psychology, 55(4), 972-985.
Goldstein, J. H. (1982). A laugh a day: Can mirth keep disease at bay? The Sciences, 22(6),
21-25.
Goldstein, J. H., Harman, J., McGhee, P. E., & Karasik, R. (1975). Test of an information-
processing model of humor: Physiological response changes during problem- and
riddle-solving. Journal of General Psychology, 92(1}, 59-68.
Goldstein, J. H., & McGhee, P. E. (Eds.). (1972). The psychology of humor: Theoretical perspectives
and empirical issues. Oxford, England: Academic Press.
REFERENCES
Goldstein, J. H., Suls, J. M., & Anthony, S. (1972). Enjoyment of specific types of humor
content: Motivation or salience? In J. H. Goldstein & P. E. McGhee (Eds.), The psychol-
ogy of humor: Theoretical perspectives and empirical issues (pp. 1 59-1 7 1). New York: Academic
Press.
Gollob, H. E, & Levine, J. (1967). Distraction as a factor in the enjoyment of aggressive humor.
Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 5(3), 368-372.
Goodenough, E L. (1932). Expression of the emotions in a blind-deaf child. Journal of Abnor-
mal & Social Psychology, 27, 328-333.
Goodwin, R. (1990). Sex differences among partner preferences: Are the sexes really very
similar? Sex Roles, 25(9-10), 501-513.
Goodwin, R., & Tang, D. (1991). Preferences for friends and close relationships partners: A
cross-cultural comparison. Journal of Social Psychology, 737(4), 579-581.
Gorham, J. (1988). The relationship between verbal teacher immediacy behaviors and student
learning. Communication Education, 37(1), 40-53.
Gorham, J., & Christophel, D. M. (1990). The relationship of teachers' use of humor in the
classroom to immediacy and student learning. Communication Education, 39(1), 46-62.
Gottman, J. M. (1993). The roles of conflict engagement, escalation, and avoidance in marital
interaction: A longitudinal view of five types of couples. Journal of Consulting & Clinical
Psychology, 61(1), 6-15.
Gottman, J. M. (1994). What predicts divorce?: The relationship between marital processes and marital
outcomes. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Gottman, J. M., Coan, J., Carrere, S., & Swanson, C. (1998). Predicting marital happiness and
stability from newlywed interactions. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 60, 5-22.
Gottman, J. M., & Levenson, R. W. (1999). Rebound from marital conflict and divorce pre-
diction. Family Process, 38, 287-292.
Gould, S. J. (2002). The structure of evolutionary theory. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Graeven, D. B., & Morris, S. J. (1975). College humor in 1930 and 1972: An investigation
using the humor diary. Sociology & Social Research, 5P(4), 406-410.
Graham, E. E., Papa, M. J., & Brooks, G. P. (1992). Functions of humor in conversa-
tion: Conceptualization and measurement. Western Journal of Communication, 56(2), 161-
183.
Grammer, K. (1990). Strangers meet: Laughter and nonverbal signs of interest in opposite-sex
encounters. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 74(4), 209-236.
Gray, J. A. (1994). Three fundamental emotion systems. In P. Ekman & R. J. Davidson (Eds.),
The nature of emotion: Fundamental questions (pp. 243-247). New York: Oxford University
Press.
Greenwood, D., & Isbell, L. M. (2002). Ambivalent sexism and the dumb blonde: Men's and
women's reactions to sexist jokes. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 26, 341-350.
Gregory,}. C. (1924). The nature of laughter. Oxford, England: Harcourt, Brace.
Greig, J. Y. T. (1923). The psychology of laughter and comedy. New York: Dodd, Mead.
Groch, A. S. (1974). Generality of response to humor and wit in cartoons, jokes, stories, and
photographs. Psychological Reports, 35, 835-838.
Gross, J. J., & Munoz, R. E (1995). Emotion regulation and mental health. Clinical Psychology:
Science & Practice, 2(2), 151-164.
Grotjahn, M. (1966). Beyond laughter: Humor and the subconscious. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Grotjahn, M. (1971). Laughter in group psychotherapy. International Journal of Group Psy-
chotherapy, 21(2), 234-238.
REFERENCES
Grugulis, I. (2002). Nothing serious? Candidates' use of humour in management training.
Human Relations, 55(4), 387-406.
Gruner, C. R. (1967). Effect of humor on speaker ethos and audience information gain. Journal
of Communication, 17(3), 228-233.
Gruner, C. R. (1976). Wit and humour in mass communication. In A. J. Chapman & H. C.
Foot (Eds.), Humor and laughter: Theory, research, and applications (pp. 287-311). London:
John Wiley & Sons.
Gruner, C. R. (1978). Understanding laughter: The workings of wit and humor. Chicago: Nelson-
Hall.
Gruner, C. R. (1997). The game of humor: A comprehensive theory of why we laugh. New Brunswick,
NJ: Transaction Publishers.
Grziwok, R., & Scodel, A. (1956). Some psychological correlates of humor preferences. Journal
of Consulting Psychology, 20, 42.
Haellstroem, T., & Noppa, H. (1981). Obesity in women in relation to mental illness, social
factors and personality traits. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 25, 75-82.
Haig, R. A. (1988). The anatomy of humor: Biopsy 'chosocial and therapeutic perspectives. Springfield,
IL, England: Charles C Thomas, Publisher.
Hall, G. S., & Allin, A. (1897). The psychology of tickling, laughing, and the comic. American
Journal of Psychology, 9(1), 1-44.
Hammes, J. A., & Wiggins, S. L. (1962). Manifest anxiety and appreciation of humor involv-
ing emotional content. Perceptual & Motor Skills, 14, 291-294.
Hampes, W. P. (1992). Relation between intimacy and humor. Psychological Reports, 71(1),
127-130.
Hampes, W. P. (1994). Relation between intimacy and the Multidimensional Sense of Humor
Scale. Psychological Reports, 74(3, Pt 2), 1360-1362.
Hampes, W. P. (1999). The relationship between humor and trust. Humor: International Journal
of Humor Research, 12(3), 253-259.
Hampes, W. P. (2001). Relation between humor and empathic concern. Psychological Reports,
88(1), 241-244.
Happe, E, Brownell, H., & Winner, E. (1999). Acquired "theory of mind" impairments fol-
lowing stroke. Cognition, 70(3), 2 1 1-240.
Harris, C. R. (1999). The mystery of ticklish laughter. American Scientist, 87(4), 344-351.
Harris, C. R., & Alvarado, N. (2005). Facial expressions, smile types, and self-report during
humour, tickle, and pain. Cognition & Emotion, 19(5), 655-669.
Harris, C. R., & Christenfeld, N. (1997). Humour, tickle, and the Darwin-Hecker Hypothe-
sis. Cognition 6" Emotion, 11(1), 103-110.
Harris, C. R., & Christenfeld, N. (1999). Can a machine tickle? Psychonomic Bulletin 6" Review,
6(3), 504-510.
Harrison, L. K., Carroll, D., Burns, V. E., Corkill, A. R., Harrison, C. M., Ring, C., et al.
(2000). Cardiovascular and secretory immunoglobin A reactions to humorous, exciting,
and didactic film presentations. Biological Psychology, 52(2), 113-126.
Hatch, M. J., & Ehrlich, S. B. (1993). Spontaneous humour as an indicator of paradox and
ambiguity in organizations. Organization Studies, 14(4), 505-526.
Hauck, W. E., & Thomas, J. W. (1972). The relationship of humor to intelligence, creativity,
and intentional and incidental learning. Journal of Experimental Education, 40(4), 52-
55.
Hay, J. (2000). Functions of humor in the conversations of men and women. Journal of Prag-
matics, 32(6), 709-742.
REFERENCES
Hayashi, K., Hayashi, T., Iwanaga, S., Kawai, K., Ishii, H., Shoji, S. I., et al. (2003). Laughter
lowered the increase in postpriandal blood glucose. Diabetes Care, 26(5), 1651-1652.
Hebb, D. O. (1955). Drives and the C.N.S. (Conceptual Nervous System). Psychological Review,
62, 243-254.
Hehl, F.-J., & Ruch, W. (1985). The location of sense of humor within comprehensive per-
sonality spaces: An exploratory study. Personality & Individual Differences, 6(6), 703-715.
Hehl, F.-J., & Ruch, W. (1990). Conservatism as a predictor of responses to humour: III. The
prediction of appreciation of incongruity resolution based humour by content saturated
attitude scales in five samples. Personality & Individual Differences, 11(5), 439-445.
Hemmasi, M., Graf, L. A., & Russ, G. S. (1994). Gender-related jokes in the workplace: Sexual
humor or sexual harassment? Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 24(12), 1 1 14-1 128.
Henkin, B., & Fish, J. M. (1986). Gender and personality differences in the appreciation of
cartoon humor. Journal of Psychology, 120(2), 157-175.
Henman, L. D. (2001). Humor as a coping mechanism: Lessons from POWs. Humor: Inter-
national Journal of Humor Research, 14(1), 83-94.
Herzog, T. R., & Bush, B. A. (1994). The prediction of preference for sick humor. Humor:
International Journal of Humor Research, 7(4), 323-340.
Herzog, T. R., & Karafa, J. A. (1998). Preferences for sick versus nonsick humor. Humor: Inter-
national Journal of Humor Research, 11(3), 291-312.
Herzog, T. R., & Larwin, D. A. (1988). The appreciation of humor in captioned cartoons.
Journal of Psychology, 122(6), 597-607.
Hickson, J. (1977). Differential responses of male and female counselor trainees to humor
stimuli. Southern Journal of Educational Research, 11(1), 1-8.
Hillson, T. R., & Martin, R. A. (1994). What's so funny about that?: The domains-interaction
approach as a model of incongruity and resolution in humor. Motivation & Emotion, 18(1),
1-29.
Hobden, K. L., & Olson, J. M. (1994). From jest to antipathy: Disparagement humor as a
source of dissonance-motivated attitude change. Basic & Applied Social Psychology, 15(3),
239-249.
Holland, N. N. (1982). Laughing: A psychology of humor. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Holmes, D. S. (1969). Sensing humor: Latency and amplitude of response related to MMPI
profiles. Journal of Consulting 6" Clinical Psychology, 33(3), 296-301.
Holmes, J., & Marra, M. (2002a). Having a laugh at work: How humour contributes to work-
place culture. Journal of Pragmatics, 34(12), 1683-1710.
Holmes, J., & Marra, M. (2002b). Over the edge? Subversive humor between colleagues and
friends. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, /5(1), 65-87.
House, J. S., Landis, K. R., & Umberson, D. (1988). Social relationships and health. Science,
247(4865), 540-545.
Hubert, W., & de Jong-Meyer, R. (1990). Psychophysiological response patterns to positive
and negative film stimuli. Biological Psychology, 31, 73-93.
Hubert, W., & de Jong-Meyer, R. (1991). Autonomic, neuroendocrine, and subjective responses
to emotion-inducing film stimuli. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 11, 131-140.
Hubert, W., Moeller, M., & de Jong-Meyer, R. (1993). Film-induced amusement changes in
saliva cortisol levels. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 18(4), 265-272.
laffaldano, M. T, & Muchinsky, P. M. (1985). Job satisfaction and job performance: A meta-
analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 97(2), 251-273.
Isen, A. M. (1993). Positive affect and decision making. In M. Lewis & J. M. Haviland (Eds.),
Handbook of emotions (pp. 261-277). New York: Guilford.
REFERENCES
Isen, A. M. (2003). Positive affect as a source of human strength. In L. G. Aspinwall & U. M.
Staudinger (Eds.), A psychology of human strengths: Fundamental questions and future direc-
tions for a positive psychology (pp. 179-195). Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association.
Isen, A. M., & Daubman, K. A. (1984). The influence of affect on categorization. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 41, 1206-1217.
Isen, A. M., Daubman, K. A., & Nowicki, G. P. (1987). Positive affect facilitates creative
problem solving. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 1 122-1 131.
Isen, A. M., Johnson, M. M. S., Mertz, E., & Robinson, G. F. (1985). The influence of posi-
tive affect on the unusualness of word associations. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-
chology, 48, 1413-1426.
Itami, J., Nobori, M., & Texhima, H. (1994). Laughter and immunity. Japanese Journal of Psy-
chosomatic Medicine, 34, 565-571.
Iwase, M., Ouchi, Y, Okada, H., Yokoyama, C., Nobezawa, S., Yoshikawa, E., et al. (2002).
Neural substrates of human facial expression of pleasant emotion induced by comic films:
A PET study. Neurolmage, 17, 758-768.
Janes, L. M., & Olson, J. M. (2000). Jeer pressures: The behavioral effects of observing ridicule
of others. Personality fc Social Psychology Bulletin, 26(4), 474-485.
Janus, S. S. (1975). The great comedians: Personality and other factors. American Journal of Psy-
choanalysis, 35(1), 169-174.
Janus, S. S., Bess, B. E., & Janus, B. R. (1978). The great comediennes: Personality and other
factors. American Journal of Psychoanalysis, 38(4), 367-372.
John, O. P. (1990). The "Big Five" factor taxonomy: Dimensions of personality in the natural
language and in questionnaires. In L. A. Pervin (Ed.), Handbook of personality: Theory and
research (pp. 66-100). New York: Guilford.
Johnson, A. K., & Anderson, E. A. (1990). Stress and arousal. In J. T. Cacioppo & L. G.
Tassinary (Eds.), Principles of psychophysiology: Physical, social, and inferential elements
(pp. 216-252). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Johnson, H. A. (1990). Humor as an innovative method for teaching sensitive topics. Educa-
tional Gerontology, 16(6), 547-559.
Johnson, K. E., & Mervis, C. B. (1997). First steps in the emergence of verbal humor: A case
study. Infant Behavior & Development, 20(1), 187-196.
Jones, E. E. (1990). Interpersonal perception. New York: W. H. Freeman.
Jones, J. A. (2005). The masking effects of humor on audience perception of message organi-
zation. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 18(4), 405-417.
Jones, J. M., & Harris, P. E. (1971). Psychophysiological correlates of cartoon humor appreci-
ation. Proceedings of the Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, 6,
381-382.
Judge, T. A., Thoresen, C. J., Bono, J. E., & Patton, G. K. (2001). The job satisfaction-job
performance relationship: A qualitative and quantitative review. Psychological Bulletin,
727(3), 376-407.
Kallen, H. M. (1968). Liberty, laughter and tears: Reflection on the relations of comedy and tragedy
to human freedom. DeKalb, IL: Northern Illinois University Press.
Kamei, T, Kumano, H., & Masumura, S. (1997). Changes of immunoregulatory cells associ-
ated with psychological stress and humor. Perceptual & Motor Skills, 84(1, Pt 2), 1296-1298.
Kane, T. R., Suls, J., & Tedeschi, J. T. (1977). Humour as a tool of social interaction. In A. J.
Chapman & H. C. Foot (Eds.), It's a fanny thing, humour (pp. 13-16). Oxford: Pergamon
Press.
REFERENCES
Kantor, M. (1992). The human dimension of depression: A practical guide to diagnosis, understand-
ing, and treatment. New York: Praeger.
Kaplan, R. M., & Pascoe, G. C. (1977). Humorous lectures and humorous examples:
Some effects upon comprehension and retention. Journal of Educational Psychology, 69(1),
61-65.
Kataria, M. (2002). Laugh for no reason (2nd ed.). Mumbai, India: Madhuri International.
Katz, A. N., Blasko, D. G., & Kazmerski, V. A. (2004). Saying what you don't mean: Social
influences on sarcastic language processing. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 13(5),
186-189.
Katz, B. F. (1993). A neural resolution of the incongruity-resolution and incongruity theories
of humour. Connection Science, 5(1), 59-75.
Kazarian, S. S., & Martin, R. A. (2004). Humor styles, personality, and well-being among
Lebanese university students. European Journal of Personality, 18(3), 209-219.
Kazarian, S. S., & Martin, R. A. (in press). Humor styles, culture-related personality, well-being,
and family adjustment among Armenians in Lebanon. Humor: International Journal of
Humor Research.
Keith-Spiegel, P. (1972). Early conceptions of humor: Varieties and issues. In J. H. Goldstein
& P. E. McGhee (Eds.), The psychology of humor: Theoretical perspectives and empirical issues
(pp. 3-39). New York: Academic Press.
Kelley, D. H., & Gorham, J. (1988). Effects of immediacy on recall of information. Communi-
cation Education, 57(3), 198-207.
Kelley, H. H. (1972). Attribution theory in social interaction. In E. E.Jones, D. E. Kanouse &
H. H. Kelley (Eds.), Attribution: Perceiving the causes of behavior (pp. 1-26). Morristown,
NJ: General Learning Press.
Kellogg, R. T. (1995). Cognitive psychology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Kelly, W. E. (2002). An investigation of worry and sense of humor. Journal of Psychology, 136(6),
657-666.
Keltner, D., & Bonanno, G. A. (1997). A study of laughter and dissociation: Distinct correlates
of laughter and smiling during bereavement. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 75(4),
687-702.
Keltner, D., Capps, L., Kring, A. M., Young, R. C., & Heerey, E. A. (2001). Just teasing: A
conceptual analysis and empirical review. Psychological Bulletin, 127(2), 229-248.
Keltner, D., Young, R. C., Heerey, E. A., Oemig, C., & Monarch, N. D. (1998). Teasing in
hierarchical and intimate relations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(5),
1231-1247.
Kennedy, S., Glaser, R., & Kiecolt-Glaser, J. (1990). Psychoneuroimmunology. In J. T.
Cacioppo & L. G. Tassinary (Eds.), Principles of psychophysiology: Physical, social, and infer-
ential elements (pp. 177-190). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Kenny, D. T. (1955). The contingency of humor appreciation on the stimulus-confirmation of
joke-ending expectations. Journal of Abnormal & Social Psychology, 51, 644-648.
Kenrick, D. T, Sadalla, E. K., Groth, G., & Trost, M. R. (1990). Evolution, traits, and the
stages of the parental investment model. Journal of Personality, 58, 97-117.
Kerkkanen, P., Kuiper, N. A., & Martin, R. A. (2004). Sense of humor, physical health, and
well-being at work: A three-year longitudinal study of Finnish police officers. Humor: Inter-
national Journal of Humor Research, 17(1-2), 21-35.
Kiecolt-Glaser, J. K., & Newton, T. L. (2001). Marriage and health: His and hers. Psychologi-
cal Bulletin, 127(4), 472-503.
REFERENCES
Killinger, B. (1987). Humor in psychotherapy: A shift to a new perspective. In W. F. Fry &
W. A. Salameh (Eds.), Handbook of humor and psychotherapy: Advances in the clinical use of
humor (pp. 2 1-40). Sarasota, FL: Professional Resource Exchange.
Kimata, H. (2001). Effect of humor on allergen-induced wheal reactions. JAMA: Journal of the
American Medical Association, 285(6), 737.
Kimata, H. (2004a). Differential effects of laughter on allergen-specific immunoglobulin and
neurotrophin levels in tears. Perceptual & Motor Skills, 98(3, Pt 1), 901-908.
Kimata, H. (2004b). Effect of viewing a humorous vs. nonhumorous film on bronchial respon-
siveness in patients with bronchial asthma. Physiology & Behavior, 81(4), 681-684.
Kintsch, W., & Bates, E. (1977). Recognition memory for statements from a classroom lecture.
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 5, 150-159.
Kipper, S., & Todt, D. (2001). Variation of sound parameters affects the evaluation of human
laughter. Behaviour, 138(9), 1161-1178.
Kipper, S., & Todt, D. (2003a). Dynamic-acoustic variation causes differences in evaluations of
laughter. Perceptual & Motor Skills, 96(3), 799-809.
Kipper, S., & Tbdt, D. (2003b). The Role of Rhythm and Pitch in the Evaluation of Human
Laughter. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 27(4), 255-272.
Kirsh, G. A., & Kuiper, N. A. (2003). Positive and negative aspects of sense of humor: Associ-
ations with the constructs of individualism and relatedness. Humor: International Journal of
Humor Research, 16(1), 33-62.
Klein, A. J. (1985). Humor comprehension and humor appreciation of cognitively oriented
humor: A study of kindergarten children. Child Study Journal, ^5(4), 223-235.
Klein, D. M., Bryant, J., & Zillmann, D. (1982). Relationship between humor in introductory
textbooks and students' evaluations of the texts' appeal and effectiveness. Psychological
Reports, 50(1), 235-241.
Kline, P. (1977). The psychoanalytic theory of humour and laughter. In A. J. Chapman &
H. C. Foot (Eds.), It's a funny thing, humour (pp. 7-12). Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Knox, I. (1951). Towards a philosophy of humor. Journal of Philosophy, 48, 541-548.
Koestler, A. (1964). The act of creation. London: Hutchinson.
Kohler, G., & Ruch, W. (1996). Sources of variance in current sense of humor inventories:
How much substance, how much method variance? Humor: International Journal of Humor
Research, P(3/4), 363-397.
Koppel, M. A., & Sechrest, L. (1970). A multitrait-multimethod matrix analysis of sense of
humor. Educational & Psychological Measurement, 30(1), 77-85.
Korb, L. J. (1988). Humor: A tool for the psychoanalyst. Issues in Ego Psychology, 11(2), 45-54.
Korotkov, D., & Hannah, T. E. (1994). Extraversion and emotionality as proposed superordi-
nate stress moderators: A prospective analysis. Personality 6" Individual Differences, 16(5),
787-792.
Kowalski, R. M., Howerton, E., & McKenzie, M. (2001). Permitted disrespect: Teasing in inter-
personal interactions. In R. M. Kowalski (Ed.), Behaving badly: Aversive behaviors in inter-
personal relationships (pp. 177-202). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Kubie, L. S. (1970). The destructive potential of humor in psychotherapy. American Journal of
Psychiatry, 127(7), 861-866.
Kuhlman, T. L. (1984). Humor and psychotherapy. Homewood, IL: Dow Jones-Irwin Dorsey
Professional Books.
Kuhlman, T. L. (1985). A study of salience and motivational theories of humor. Journal of Per-
sonality 6- Social Psychology, 49(1), 281-286.
REFERENCES
Kuiper, N. A., & Borowicz-Sibenik, M. (2005). A good sense of humor doesn't always help:
Agency and communion as moderators of psychological well-being. Personality 6" Individ-
ual Differences, 38(2), 365-377.
Kuiper, N. A., Grimshaw, M., Leite, C., & Kirsh, G. A. (2004). Humor is not always the best
medicine: Specific components of sense of humor and psychological well-being. Humor:
International Journal of Humor Research, 17(1-2), 135-168.
Kuiper, N. A., & Martin, R. A. (1993). Humor and self-concept. Humor: International Journal
of Humor Research, 5(3), 251-270.
Kuiper, N. A., & Martin, R. A. (1998a). Is sense of humor a positive personality characteristic?
In W. Ruch (Ed.), The sense of humor: Explorations of a personality characteristic (pp. 1 59-1 78).
Berlin, Germany: Walter de Gruyter.
Kuiper, N. A., & Martin, R. A. (1998b). Laughter and stress in daily life: Relation to positive
and negative affect. Motivation & Emotion, 22(2), 133-153.
Kuiper, N. A., Martin, R. A., & Dance, K. A. (1992). Sense of humour and enhanced quality
of life. Personality & Individual Differences, 13(12), 1273-1283.
Kuiper, N. A., Martin, R. A., & Olinger, L. J. (1993). Coping humour, stress, and cognitive
appraisals. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 25(1), 81-96.
Kuiper, N. A., Martin, R. A., Olinger, L. J., Kazarian, S. S., & Jette, J. L. (1998). Sense of
humor, self-concept, and psychological well-being in psychiatric inpatients. Humor: Inter-
national Journal of Humor Research, 11(4), 357-381.
Kuiper, N. A., McKenzie, S. D., & Belanger, K. A. (1995). Cognitive appraisals and individual
differences in sense of humor: Motivational and affective implications. Personality & Indi-
vidual Differences, 19(3), 359-372.
Kuiper, N. A., & Nicholl, S. (2004). Thoughts of feeling better? Sense of humor and physical
health. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 17(1-2), 37-66.
Kuiper, N. A., & Olinger, L. J. (1998). Humor and mental health. In H. S. Friedman (Ed.),
Encyclopedia of mental health (Vol. 2, pp. 445^-57). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Kush, J. C. (1997). Relationship between humor appreciation and counselor self-perceptions.
Counseling & Values, 42(1), 22-29.
Kushner, M. (1990). The light touch: How to use humor for business success. In. New York:
Simon & Schuster.
La Fave, L. (1972). Humor judgments as a function of reference groups and identification
classes. In J. H. Goldstein & P. E. McGhee (Eds.), The psychology of humor: Theoretical per-
spectives and empirical issues (pp. 195-210). New York: Academic Press.
La Fave, L., Haddad, J., & Maesen, W. A. (1976). Superiority, enhanced self-esteem, and
perceived incongruity humour theory. In A. J. Chapman & H. C. Foot (Eds.), Humor
and laughter: Theory, research, and applications (pp. 63-91). London: John Wiley &
Sons.
La Fave, L., Haddad, J., & Marshall, N. (1974). Humor judgments as a function of identifica-
tion classes. Sociology & Social Research, 58(2), 184-194.
La Gaipa, J. J. (1977). The effects of humour on the flow of social conversation. In A. J.
Chapman & H. C. Foot (Eds.), It's a funny thing, humour (pp. 421-427). Oxford: Perga-
mon Press.
Labott, S. M., Ahleman, S., Wolever, M. E., & Martin, R. B. (1990). The physiological and
psychological effects of the expression and inhibition of emotion. Behavioral Medicine,
16(4), 182-189.
Labott, S. M., & Martin, R. B. (1987). The stress-moderating effects of weeping and humor.
Journal of Human Stress, 13(4), 159-164.
REFERENCES
Labott, S. M., & Martin, R. B. (1990). Emotional coping, age, and physical disorder. Behav-
ioral Medicine, 16(2), 53-61.
Lamb, C. W. (1968). Personality correlates of humor enjoyment following motivational arousal.
Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 9(3), 237-241.
Lambert, R. B., & Lambert, N. K. (1995). The effects of humor on secretory Immunoglobu-
lin A levels in school-aged children. Pediatric Nursing, 21, 16-19.
Lampert, M. D., & Ervin-Tripp, S. M. (1998). Exploring paradigms: The study of gender and
sense of humor near the end of the 20th century. In W. Ruch (Ed.), The sense of humor:
Explorations of a personality characteristic (pp. 23 1-270). Berlin, Germany: Walter de Gruyter.
Landis, C., & Ross, J. W. H. (1933). Humor and its relation to other personality traits. Journal
of Social Psychology, 4, 156-175.
Landy, D., & Mettee, D. (1969). Evaluation of an aggressor as a function of exposure to cartoon
humor. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 12(1), 66-71.
Langevin, R., & Day, H. I. (1972). Physiological correlates of humor. In J. H. Goldstein &
P. E. McGhee (Eds.), The psychology of humor: Theoretical perspectives and empirical issues
(pp. 129-142). New York: Academic Press.
Lauer, R. H., Lauer, J. C., & Kerr, S. T (1990). The long-term marriage: Perceptions of
stability and satisfaction. International Journal of Aging & Human Development, 31(3),
189-195.
Lazarus, R. S. (1991). Cognition and motivation in emotion. American Psychologist, 46(4),
352-367.
Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. New York: Springer.
Leacock, S. B. (1935). Humor: Its theory and technique. New York: Dodd, Mead.
Leak, G. K. (1974). Effects of hostility arousal and aggressive humor on catharsis and humor
preference. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 30(6), 736-740.
Leber, D. A., & Vanoli, E. G. (2001). Therapeutic use of humor: Occupational therapy clini-
cians' perceptions and practices. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 55(2), 221-226.
LeDoux, J. E. (1994). Emotion-specific physiological activity: Don't forget about CNS physi-
ology. In P. Ekman & R. J. Davidson (Eds.), The nature of emotion: Fundamental questions
(pp. 248-251). New York: Oxford University Press.
Lefcourt, H. M. (2001). Humor: The psychology of living buoyantly. New York: Kluwer Academic.
Lefcourt, H. M., Davidson, K., Prkachin, K. M., & Mills, D. E. (1997). Humor as a stress mod-
erator in the prediction of blood pressure obtained during five stressful tasks. Journal of
Research in Personality, 31(4), 523-542.
Lefcourt, H. M., Davidson, K., Shepherd, R., & Phillips, M. (1997). Who likes "Far Side"
humor? Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 10(4), 439-452.
Lefcourt, H. M., Davidson, K., Shepherd, R., Phillips, M., Prkachin, K. M., & Mills, D. E.
(1995). Perspective-taking humor: Accounting for stress moderation. Journal of Social &
Clinical Psychology, 14(4), 373-391.
Lefcourt, H. M., Davidson-Katz, K., & Kueneman, K. (1990). Humor and immune-system
functioning. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 3(3), 305-321.
Lefcourt, H. M., & Martin, R. A. (1986). Humor and life stress: Antidote to adversity. New York:
Springer- Verlag.
Lefort, B. (1992). Structure of verbal jokes and comprehension in young children. Humor: Inter-
national Journal of Humor Research, 5(1-2), 149-163.
Lehman, K. M., Burke, K. L., Martin, R., Sultan, J., & Czech, D. R. (2001). A reformulation
of the moderating effects of productive humor. Humor: International Journal of Humor
Research, 14(2), 131-161.
REFERENCES
Lemma, A. (1999). Humour on the couch: Exploring humour in psychotherapy and everyday life.
London, England: Whurr Publishers, Ltd.
Levenson, R. W. (1994). Human emotions: A functional view. In P. Ekman & R. J. Davidson
(Eds.), The nature of emotion: Fundamental questions (pp. 123-126). New York: Oxford
University Press.
Leventhal, H., & Patrick-Miller, L. (2000). Emotions and physical illness: Causes and indica-
tors of vulnerability. In M. Lewis & J. M. Haviland-Jones (Eds.), Handbook of emotions (2nd
ed., pp. 523-537). New York: Guilford.
Leventhal, H., & Safer, M. A. (1977). Individual differences, personality, and humour appreci-
ation: Introduction to symposium. In A. J. Chapman & H. C. Foot (Eds.), It's a funny thing,
humour (pp. 335-349). Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Levi, L. (1965). The urinary output of adrenalin and noradrenalin during pleasant and unpleas-
ant emotional states: A preliminary report. Psychosomatic Medicine, 27, 80-85.
Levine, J. (1977). Humour as a form of therapy: Introduction to symposium. In A. J. Chapman
& H. C. Foot (Eds.), It's a funny thing, humour (pp. 127-137). Oxford: Pergamon
Press.
Levine, J., & Abelson, R. P. (1959). Humor as a disturbing stimulus. Journal of General Psy-
chology, 60, 191-200.
Levine, J., & Redlich, F. C. (1955). Failure to understand humor. Psychoanalytic Quarterly, 24,
560-572.
Levinson, W., Roter, D. L., Mullooly, J. P., Dull, V T., et al. (1997). Physician-patient com-
munication: The relationship with malpractice claims among primary care physicians and
surgeons. JAMA: Journal of the American Medical Association, 277(7), 553-559.
Lewis, P. (1997). Debate: Humor and political correctness. Humor: International Journal of
Humor Research, 10(4), 453-513.
Lewis, P. (2006). Cracking up: American humor in a time of conflict. Chicago, IL: University of
Chicago Press.
Lightner, R. M., Bollmer, J. M., Harris, M. J., Milich, R., & Scambler, D. J. (2000). What do
you say to teasers? Parent and child evaluations of responses to teasing. Journal of Applied
Developmental Psychology, 2/(4), 403^27.
Lippman, L. G., & Dunn, M. L. (2000). Contextual connections within puns: Effects on per-
ceived humor and memory. Journal of General Psychology, 127(2), 185-197.
Lloyd, E. L. (1938). The respiratory mechanism in laughter. Journal of General Psychology, 19,
179-189.
Loeb, M., & Wood, V. (1986). Epilogue: A nascent idea for an Eriksonian model of humor.
In L. Nahemow, K. A. McCluskey-Fawcett & P. E. McGhee (Eds.), Humor and aging
(pp. 279-284). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
Loehlin, J. C., & Nichols, R. C. (1976). Heredity, environment, and personality. Austin, TX: Uni-
versity of Texas Press.
Long, D. L., & Graesser, A. C. (1988). Wit and humor in discourse processing. Discourse
Processes, 11(1), 35-60.
Losco, J., & Epstein, S. (1975). Humor preference as a subtle measure of attitudes toward the
same and the opposite sex. Journal of Personality, 43(2), 321-334.
Lourey, E., & McLachlan, A. (2003). Elements of sensation seeking and their relationship with
two aspects of humour appreciation-perceived funniness and overt expression. Personality
6- Individual Differences, 35(2), 277-287.
Love, A. M., & Deckers, L. H. (1989). Humor appreciation as a function of sexual, aggressive,
and sexist content. Sex Roles, 20(11-12), 649-654.
REFERENCES 35
Lowe, G., Britton, R., Carpenter, E., Castle, H., Clayton, C., Hulme, C., et al. (1997). Social
drinking and laughter. Psychological Reports, 81(2), 684.
Lowe, G., & Taylor, S. B. (1993). Relationship between laughter and weekly alcohol con-
sumption. Psychological Reports, 72(3, Pt 2), 1210.
Luborsky, L. B., & Cattell, R. B. (1947). The validation of personality factors in humor. Journal
of Personality, 15, 283-291.
Ludovici, A. M. (1933). The secret of laughter. New York: Viking Press.
Lundy, D. E., Tan, J., & Cunningham, M. R. (1998). Heterosexual romantic preferences: The
importance of humor and physical attractiveness for different types of relationships. Per-
sonal Relationships, 5(3), 311-325.
Lyons, V, & Fitzgerald, M. (2004). Humor in autism and Asperger syndrome. Journal of Autism
& Developmental Disorders, 34(5), 521-531.
Lyttle, J. (2001). The effectiveness of humor in persuasion: The case of business ethics train-
ing. Journal of General Psychology, 128(2), 206-216.
Lyubomirsky, S., King, L., & Diener, E. (2005). The benefits of frequent positive affect: Does
happiness lead to success? Psychological Bulletin, 131(6), 803-855.
MacDonald, N. E., & Silverman, I. W. (1978). Smiling and laughter in infants as a func-
tion of level of arousal and cognitive evaluation. Developmental Psychology, 14(3), 235-
241.
Mackie, D. M., & Worth, L. T. (1989). Processing deficits and the mediation of positive affect
in persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(1), 27-40.
MacLean, P. D. (1987). The midline frontolimbic cortex and the evolution of crying and laugh-
ter. In E. Perecman (Ed.), The frontal lobes revisited (pp. 121-140). New York, NY: IRBN
Press.
Madanes, C. (1987). Humor in strategic family therapy. In W. F. Fry & W. A. Salameh (Eds.),
Handbook of humor and psychotherapy: Advances in the clinical use of humor (pp. 241-264). Sara-
sota, FL: Professional Resource Exchange.
Madden, T. J., & Weinberger, M. G. (1982). The effects of humor on attention in magazine
advertising. Journal of Advertising, 11(3), 8-14.
Magnavita, J. J. (2002). Theories of personality: Contemporary approaches to the science of personality.
New York: Wiley.
Mahony, D. L., Burroughs, W. J., & Hieatt, A. C. (2001). The effects of laughter on discom-
fort thresholds: Does expectation become reality? Journal of General Psychology, 128(2),
217-226.
Maio, G. R., Olson, J. M., & Bush, J. E. (1997). Telling jokes that disparage social groups:
Effects on the joke teller's stereotypes. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 27(22),
1986-2000.
Mandler, J. M. (1979). Categorical and schematic organization in memory. In C. R. Puff (Ed.),
Memory organization and structure (pp. 259-299). New York: Academic Press.
Manke, B. (1998). Genetic and environmental contributions to children's interpersonal humor.
In W. Ruch (Ed.), The sense of humor: Explorations of a personality characteristic (pp. 361-384).
Berlin, Germany: Walter de Gruyter.
Manne, S., Sherman, M., Ross, S., Ostroff, J., Heyman, R. E., & Fox, K. (2004). Couples'
support-related communication, psychological distress, and relationship satisfaction
among women with early stage breast cancer. Journal of Consulting 6" Clinical Psychology,
72(4), 660-670.
Mannell, R. C., & McMahon, L. (1982). Humor as play: Its relationship to psychological well-
being during the course of a day. Leisure Sciences, 5(2), 143-155.
REFERENCES
Marci, C. D., Moran, E. K., & Orr, S. P. (2004). Physiologic evidence for the interpersonal
role of laughter during psychotherapy. Journal of Nervous & Mental Disease, 192(10),
689-695.
Marcus, N. N. (1990). Treating those who fail to take themselves seriously: Pathological aspects
of humor. American Journal of Psychotherapy, 44(3), 423-432.
Markiewicz, D. (1974). Effects of humor on persuasion. Sociometry, 37(3), 407-422.
Martens, W. H. J. (2004). Therapeutic use of humor in antisocial personalities. Journal of Con-
temporary Psychotherapy, 34(4), 351-361.
Martin, D. M. (2004). Humor in middle management: Women negotiating the paradoxes of
organizational life. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 32(2), 147-170.
Martin, G. N., & Gray, C. D. (1996). The effects of audience laughter on men's and women's
responses to humor. Journal of Social Psychology, 136(2), 221-231.
Martin, L. R., Friedman, H. S., Tucker, J. S., Tomlinson-Keasey, C., Criqui, M. H., & Schwartz,
J. E. (2002). A life course perspective on childhood cheerfulness and its relation to mor-
tality risk. Personality fc Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(9), 1 155-1 165.
Martin, R. A. (1984). Telic dominance, humor, stress, and moods. Paper presented at the Interna-
tional Symposium on Reversal Theory, Gregynog, Wales.
Martin, R. A. (1989). Humor and the mastery of living: Using humor to cope with the daily
stresses of growing up. In P. E. McGhee (Ed.), Humor and children's development: A guide
to practical applications (pp. 135-154). New York: Haworth Press.
Martin, R. A. (1996). The Situational Humor Response Questionnaire (SHRQ) and Coping
Humor Scale (CHS): A decade of research findings. Humor: International Journal of Humor
Research, 9(3^), 251-272.
Martin, R. A. (1998). Approaches to the sense of humor: A historical review. In W. Ruch (Ed.),
The sense of humor: Explorations of a personality characteristic (pp. 15-60). Berlin, Germany:
Walter de Gruyter.
Martin, R. A. (2000). Humor and laughter. In A. E. Kazdin (Ed.), Encyclopedia of psychology
(Vol. 4, pp. 202-204). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Martin, R. A. (2001). Humor, laughter, and physical health: Methodological issues and research
findings. Psychological Bulletin, 127(4), 504-519.
Martin, R. A. (2002). Is laughter the best medicine? Humor, laughter, and physical health.
Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11(6), 216-220.
Martin, R. A. (2003). Sense of humor. In S. J. Lopez & C. R. Snyder (Eds.), Positive psychological
assessment: A handbook of models and measures (pp. 313-326). Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.
Martin, R. A., Campbell, L., & Ward, J. R. (2006). Observed humor styles, relationship quality,
and problem resolution in a conflict discussion between dating couples. Paper presented
at the annual conference of the International Society for Humor Studies, Copenhagen,
Denmark.
Martin, R. A., & Dobbin, J. P. (1988). Sense of humor, hassles, and immunoglobulin A: Evi-
dence for a stress-moderating effect of humor. International Journal of Psychiatry in Medi-
cine, 18(2), 93-105.
Martin, R. A., & Dutrizac, G. (2004). Humor styles, social skills, and quality of interactions with
close others: A prospective daily diary study. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the
International Society for Humor Studies, Dijon, France.
Martin, R. A., & Kuiper, N. A. (1999). Daily occurrence of laughter: Relationships with age,
gender, and Type A personality. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 12(4),
355-384.
REFERENCES 4(
Martin, R. A., Kuiper, N. A., Olinger, L. J., & Dance, K. A. (1993). Humor, coping with stress,
self-concept, and psychological well-being. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research,
5(1), 89-104.
Martin, R. A., Kuiper, N. A., Olinger, L. J., & Dobbin, J. P. (1987). Is stress always bad? Telic
versus paratelic dominance as a stress moderating variable. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 53, 970-982.
Martin, R. A., & Lefcourt, H. M. (1983). Sense of humor as a moderator of the relation between
stressors and moods. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 45(6), 1313-1324.
Martin, R. A., & Lefcourt, H. M. (1984). Situational Humor Response Questionnaire: Quan-
titative measure of sense of humor. Journal of Personality ti Social Psychology, 47(1), 145-
155.
Martin, R. A., Puhlik-Doris, P., Larsen, G., Gray, J., & Weir, K. (2003). Individual differences
in uses of humor and their relation to psychological well-being: Development of the
Humor Styles Questionnaire. Journal of Research in Personality, 37(1), 48-75.
Martineau, W. H. (1972). A model of the social functions of humor. In J. H. Goldstein &
P. E. McGhee (Eds.), The psychology of humor: Theoretical perspectives and empirical issues
(pp. 101-125). New York: Academic Press.
Maslow, A. H. (1954). Motivation and personality. New York: Harper.
Masselos, G. (2003). "When I play funny it makes me laugh": Implications for early child-
hood educators in developing humor through play. In D. E. Lytle (Ed.), Play and edu-
cational theory and practice (pp. 213-226). Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers/Greenwood
Publishing.
Masten, A. S. (1986). Humor and competence in school-aged children. Child Development, 51(2),
461-473.
May, R. (1953). Man's search for himself. New York: Random House.
Mayne, T. J. (2001). Emotions and health. In T. J. Mayne & G. A. Bonanno (Eds.), Emotions:
Current issues and future directions (pp. 361-397). New York: Guilford.
McCarroll, J. E., Ursano, R. J., Wright, K. M., & Fullerton, C. S. (1993). Handling bodies
after violent death: Strategies for coping. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 63(2),
209-214.
McCauley, C., Woods, K., Coolidge, C., & Kulick, W. (1983). More aggressive cartoons are
funnier. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 44(4), 817-823.
McClelland, D. C., & Cheriff, A. D. (1997). The immunoenhancing effects of humor on secre-
tory IgA and resistance to respiratory infections. Psychology & Health, /2(3), 329-344.
McComas, H. C. (1923). The origin of laughter. Psychological Review, 30, 45-56.
McCrae, R. R., & John, O. P. (1992). An introduction to the five-factor model and its appli-
cations. Journal of Personality, 60(2), 175-215.
McDougall, W. (1903). The theory of laughter. Nature, 67, 318-319.
McDougall, W. (1922). Why do we laugh? Scribners, 71, 359-363.
McGhee, P. E. (197 la). Cognitive development and children's comprehension of humor. Child
Development, 42(1), 123-138.
McGhee, P. E. (1971b). The role of operational thinking in children's comprehension and
appreciation of humor. Child Development, 42(3), 733-744.
McGhee, P. E. (1972). On the cognitive origins of incongruity humor: Fantasy assimilation
versus reality assimilation. In J. H. Goldstein & P. E. McGhee (Eds.), The psychology of
humor: Theoretical perspectives and empirical issues (pp. 61-80). New York: Academic Press.
McGhee, P. E. (1974). Cognitive mastery and children's humor. Psychological Bulletin, #7(10),
721-730.
REFERENCES
McGhee, P. E. (1976). Children's appreciation of humor: A test of the cognitive congruency
principle. Child Development, 47(2), 420-426.
McGhee, P. E. (1980a). Development of the creative aspects of humour. In P. E. McGhee &
A. J. Chapman (Eds.), Children's humour (pp. 119-139). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
McGhee, P. E. (1980b). Development of the sense of humour in childhood: A longitudinal
study. In P. E. McGhee & A. J. Chapman (Eds.), Children's humour (pp. 213-236). Chi-
chester: John Wiley & Sons.
McGhee, P. E. (1983 a). Humor development: Toward a life span approach. In P. E. McGhee
&J. H.Goldstein (Eds.), Handbook of humor research, Vol. 1 : Basic issues (Vol. l,pp. 109-134).
New York: Springer- Verlag.
McGhee, P. E. (1983b). The role of arousal and hemispheric lateralization in humor. In P. E.
McGhee &J. H. Goldstein (Eds.), Handbook of humor research, Vol. 1 : Basic issues (pp. 13-37).
New York: Springer- Verlag.
McGhee, P. E. (1999). Health, healing and the amuse system: Humor as survival training (3rd ed.).
Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall/Hunt.
McGhee, P. E. (Ed.). (1979). Humor: Its origin and development. San Francisco, CA: W. H.
Freeman.
McGhee, P. E., Bell, N. J., & Duffey, N. S. (1986). Generational differences in humor and cor-
relates of humor development. In L. Nahemow, K. A. McCluskey-Fawcett & P. E.
McGhee (Eds.), Humor and aging (pp. 253-263). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
McGhee, P. E., & Duffey, N. S. (1983). Children's appreciation of humor victimizing different
racial-ethnic groups: Racial-ethnic differences. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 14(1),
29-40.
McGhee, P. E., & Goldstein, J. H. (Eds.). (1983). Handbook of humor research (Vols. 1 and 2).
New York: Springer- Verlag.
McGhee, P. E., & Lloyd, S. A. (1981). A developmental test of the disposition theory of humor.
Child Development, 52(3), 925-931.
McGhee, P. E., & Lloyd, S. A. (1982). Behavioral characteristics associated with the develop-
ment of humor in young children. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 141(2), 253-259.
McGhee, P. E., Ruch, W, & Hehl, F.-J. (1990). A personality-based model of humor develop-
ment during adulthood. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 3(2), 1 19-146.
McMorris, R. F, Boothroyd, R. A., & Pietrangelo, D. J. (1997). Humor in educational testing:
A review and discussion. Applied Measurement in Education, 10(3), 269-297.
McMorris, R. F, Urbach, S. L., & Connor, M. C. (1985). Effects of incorporating humor in
test items. Journal of Educational Measurement, 22(2), 147-155.
Mednick, S. A. (1962). The associative basis of the creative process. Psychological Review, 69,
220-232.
Megdell, J. I. (1984). Relationship between counselor-initiated humor and client's self-perceived
attraction in the counseling interview. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training,
27(4), 517-523.
Mendez, M. E, Nakawatase, T. V, & Brown, C. V (1999). Involuntary laughter and inappro-
priate hilarity. Journal of Neuropsychiatry & Clinical Neurosciences, 11(2), 253-258.
Mettee, D. R., Hrelec, E. S., & Wilkens, P. C. (1971). Humor as an interpersonal asset and lia-
bility. Journal of Social Psychology, #5(1), 51-64.
Meyer, J. C. (1997). Humor in member narratives: Uniting and dividing at work. Western
Journal of Communication, 61(2), 1 88-208.
Meyer, M., Zysset, S., von Cramon, D. Y, & Alter, K. (2005). Distinct fMRI responses to laugh-
ter, speech, and sounds along the human peri-sylvian cortex. Cognitive Brain Research, 24(2),
291-306.
REFERENCES 4(
Middleton, R. (1959). Negro and white reactions to racial humor. Sociometry, 22, 175-183.
Miller, G. F. (1997). Protean primates: The evolution of adaptive unpredictability in competi-
tion and courtship. In A. Whiten & R. W. Byrne (Eds.), Machiavellian intelligence II: Exten-
sions and evaluations (pp. 312-340). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Miller, G. F. (2000). The mating mind: How sexual choice shaped the evolution of human nature.
New York: Doubleday.
Mindess, H. (1971). Laughter and liberation. Los Angeles: Nash Publishing.
Mindess, H. (1976). The use and abuse of humour in psychotherapy. In A. J. Chapman &
H. C. Foot (Eds.), Humor and laughter: Theory, research, and applications (pp. 331-341).
London: John Wiley & Sons.
Minsky, M. (1977). Frame-system theory. In P. N. Johnson-Laird & P. C. Wason (Eds.),
Thinking: Readings in cognitive science (pp. 355-376). Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Mio, J. S., & Graesser, A. C. (1991). Humor, language, and metaphor. Metaphor fc Symbolic
Activity, 6(2), 87-102.
Mittwoch-Jaffe, T, Shalit, E, Srendi, B., & Yehuda, S. (1995). Modification of cytokine secre-
tion following mild emotional stimuli. NeuroReport, 6, 789-792.
Mobbs, D., Greicius, M. D., Abdel-Azim, E., Menon, V, & Reiss, A. L. (2003). Humor mod-
ulates the mesolimbic reward centers. Neuron, 40, 1041-1048.
Mobbs, D., Hagan, C. C., Azim, E., Menon, V., & Reiss, A. L. (2005). Personality predicts
activity in reward and emotional regions associated with humor. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences, 102(45), 16502-16506.
Moody, R. A. (1978). Laugh after laugh: The healing power of humor. Jacksonville, FL:
Headwaters Press.
Moore, T. E., Griffiths, K., & Payne, B. (1987). Gender, attitudes towards women, and the
appreciation of sexist humor. Sex Roles, 16(9-10), 521-531.
Moran, C., & Massam, M. (1997). An evaluation of humour in emergency work. Australasian
Journal of Disaster and Trauma Studies, 1(3).
Moran, C. C. (1996). Short-term mood change, perceived funniness, and the effect of humor
stimuli. Behavioral Medicine, 22(1), 32-38.
Morreall, J. (1991). Humor and work. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 4(1-4),
359-373.
Morreall, J. (Ed.). (1987). The philosophy of laughter and humor. Albany, NY: State University of
New York Press.
Morse, S., & Gergen, K. (1970). Social comparison, self-consistency, and the concept of self.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 16, 148-156.
Mowrer, D. E. (1994). A case study of perceptual and acoustic features of an infant's first laugh
utterances. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 7(2), 139-155.
Mowrer, D. E., LaPointe, L. L., & Case, J. (1987). Analysis of five acoustic correlates of laugh-
ter. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 11(3), 191-199.
Mueller, C. W, & Donnerstein, E. (1983). Film-induced arousal and aggressive behavior.
Journal of Social Psychology, 119(1), 61-67.
Mulkay, M. (1988). On humor: Its nature and its place in modern society. New York: Basil
Blackwell.
Mulkay, M., Clark, C., & Pinch, T. (1993). Laughter and the profit motive: The use of humor
in a photographic shop. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 6(2), 163-
193.
Murdock, M. C., & Ganim, R. M. (1993). Creativity and humor: Integration and incongruity.
Journal of Creative Behavior, 27(1), 57-70.
REFERENCES
Murgatroyd, S., Rushton, C., Apter, M., & Ray, C. (1978). The development of the Telic Dom-
inance Scale. Journal of 'Personality Assessment, 42(5), 519-528.
Murstein, B. L, & Brust, R. G. (1985). Humor and interpersonal attraction. Journal of Person-
ality Assessment, 49(6), 637-640.
Nerhardt, G. (1970). Humor and inclination to laugh: Emotional reactions to stimuli of dif-
ferent divergence from a range of expectancy. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, //(3),
185-195.
Nerhardt, G. (1976). Incongruity and funniness: Towards a new descriptive model. In A. J.
Chapman & H. C. Foot (Eds.), Humor and laughter: Theory, research, and applications
(pp. 55-62). London: John Wiley & Sons.
Nerhardt, G. (1977). Operationalization of incongruity in humour research: A critique and sug-
gestions. In A. J. Chapman & H. C. Foot (Eds.), It's a funny thing, humour (pp. 47-51).
Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Neuhoff, C. C., & Schaefer, C. (2002). Effects of laughing, smiling, and howling on mood. Psy-
chological Reports, 91(3, Pt 2), 1079-1080.
Neuliep, J. W. (1991). An examination of the content of high school teachers' humor in the
classroom and the development of an inductively derived taxonomy of classroom humor.
Communication Education, 40(4), 343-355.
Nevo, O., Aharonson, H., & Klingman, A. (1998). The development and evaluation of a
systematic program for improving sense of humor. In W. Ruch (Ed.), The sense of
humor: Explorations of a personality characteristic (pp. 385-404). Berlin, Germany: Walter de
Gruyter.
Nevo, O., Keinan, G., & Teshimovsky-Arditi, M. (1993). Humor and pain tolerance. Humor:
International Journal of Humor Research, 6(1), 71-88.
Nevo, O., & Nevo, B. (1983). What do you do when asked to answer humorously? Journal of
Personality fc Social Psychology, 44(1), 188-194.
Newman, M. G., & Stone, A. A. (1996). Does humor moderate the effects of experimentally-
induced stress? Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 18(2), 101-109.
Newton, G. R., & Dowd, E. T. (1990). Effect of client sense of humor and paradoxical inter-
ventions on test anxiety. Journal of Counseling 6" Development, 68(6), 668-672.
Nezlek, J. B., & Derks, P. (2001). Use of humor as a coping mechanism, psychological adjust-
ment, and social interaction. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 14(4),
395^13.
Nezu, A. M., Nezu, C. M., & Blissett, S. E. (1988). Sense of humor as a moderator of the rela-
tion between stressful events and psychological distress: A prospective analysis. Journal of
Personality & Social Psychology, 54(3), 520-525.
Nias, D. K. (1981). Humour and personality. In R. Lynn (Ed.), Dimensions of personality: Papers
in honour ofH. J. Eysenck (pp. 287-313). Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Nias, D. K., & Wilson, G. D. (1977). A genetic analysis of humour preferences. In A. J.
Chapman & H. C. Foot (Eds.), It's a funny thing, humour (pp. 371-373). Oxford: Perga-
mon Press.
Niethammer, T. (1983). Does man possess a laughter center? Laughing gas used in a new
approach. New Ideas in Psychology, 1(1), 67-69.
Nilsen, A. P., & Nilsen, D. L. F. (2000). Encyclopedia of 20th-century American humor. Phoenix,
AZ: Oryx Press.
Njus, D. M., Nitschke, W., & Bryant, F. B. (1996). Positive affect, negative affect, and the mod-
erating effect of writing on slgA antibody levels. Psychology 6" Health, 12(1), 135-148.
Norrick, N. R. (1984). Stock conversational witticisms. Journal of Pragmatics, 8, 195-209.
REFERENCES
Norrick, N. R. (1986). A frame-theoretical analysis of verbal humor. Semiotica, 60, 225-245.
Norrick, N. R. (1993). Conversational joking: Humor in everyday talk. Bloomington, IN: Indiana
University Press.
Norrick, N. R. (2003). Issues in conversational joking. Journal of Pragmatics, 35(9), 1333-1359.
Nwokah, E. E., Davies, P., Islam, A., Hsu, H.-C., & Fogel, A. (1993). Vocal affect in three-
year-olds: A quantitative acoustic analysis of child laughter. Journal of the Acoustical Society
of America, 94(6), 3076-3090.
Nwokah, E. E., & Fogel, A. (1993). Laughter in mother-infant emotional communication.
Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 6(2), 137-161.
Nwokah, E. E., Hsu, H.-C., Davies, P., & Fogel, A. (1999). The integration of laughter and
speech in vocal communication: A dynamic systems perspective. Journal of Speech, Lan-
guage, fc Hearing Research, 42(4), 880-894.
Nwokah, E. E., Hsu, H.-C., Dobrowolska, O., & Fogel, A. (1994). The development of laugh-
ter in mother-infant communication: Timing parameters and temporal sequences. Infant
Behavior & Development, 17(1), 23-35.
Obrdlik, A. (1942). Gallows humor: A sociological phenomenon. American Journal of Sociology,
47, 709-716.
O'Connell, W. E. (1960). The adaptive functions of wit and humor. Journal of Abnormal fy Social
Psychology, 61, 263-270.
O'Connell, W. E. (1969). The social aspects of wit and humor. Journal of Social Psychology, 79(2),
183-187.
O'Connell, W. E. (1976). Freudian humour: The eupsychia of everyday life. In A. J. Chapman
& H. C. Foot (Eds.), Humor and laughter: Theory, research, and applications (pp. 313-329).
London: John Wiley & Sons.
O'Connell, W. E. (1981). Natural high therapy. In R. J. Corsini (Ed.), Handbook of innovative
psychotherapies (pp. 554-568). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
O'Connell, W. E. (1987). Natural high theory and practice: The humorist's game of games. In
W. F. Fry & W. A. Salameh (Eds.), Handbook of humor and psychotherapy: Advances in the
clinical use of humor (pp. 55-79). Sarasota, FL: Professional Resource Exchange.
Odell, M. (1996). The silliness factor: Breaking up repetitive and unproductive conflict pat-
terns with couples and families. Journal of Family Psychotherapy, 7(3), 69-75.
Olson, H. A. (1994). The use of humor in psychotherapy. In H. S. Strean (Ed.), The use of humor
in psychotherapy (pp. 195-198). Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson.
Olson, J. M., Maio, G. R., & Hobden, K. L. (1999). The (null) effects of exposure to dispar-
agement humor on stereotypes and attitudes. Humor: International Journal of Humor
Research, 12(2), 195-219.
Olson, M. L., Hugelshofer, D. S., Kwon, P., & Reff, R. C. (2005). Rumination and dysphoria:
The buffering role of adaptive forms of humor. Personality and Individual Differences, 39(8),
1419-1428.
Omwake, L. (1939). Factors influencing the sense of humor. Journal of Social Psychology, 10,
95-104.
O'Neill, R. M., Greenberg, R. P., & Fisher, S. (1992). Humor and anality. Humor: International
Journal of Humor Research, 5(3), 283-291.
Oppliger, P. A. (2003). Humor and learning. In J. Bryant, D. Roskos-Ewoldsen & J. R. Cantor
(Eds.), Communication and emotion: Essays in honor of Dolf Zillmann (pp. 255-273). Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Oppliger, P. A., & Zillmann, D. (1997). Disgust in humor: Its appeal to adolescents. Humor:
International Journal of Humor Research, 10(4), 421-437.
REFERENCES
O'Quin, K., & Aronoff, J. (1981). Humor as a technique of social influence. Social Psychology
Quarterly, 44(<\\ 349-357.
O'Quin, K., & Derks, P. (1997). Humor and creativity: A review of the empirical literature. In
M. A. Runco (Ed.), The creativity handbook (Vol. 1, pp. 227-256). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton
Press.
Oring, E. (1994). Humor and the suppression of sentiment. Humor: International Journal of
Humor Research, 7(1), 7-26.
Osgood, C. E., Suci, G. J., & Tannenbaum, P. H. (1957). The measurement of meaning. Urbana,
IL: University of Illinois Press.
Overeem, S., Lammers, G. J., & Van Dijk, J. G. (1999). Weak with laughter. Lancet, 354, 838.
Overeem, S., Taal, W., Gezici, E. 6., Lammers, G. J., & Van Dijk, J. G. (2004). Is motor inhi-
bition during laughter due to emotional or respiratory influences? Psychophysiology, 41(2),
254-258.
Overholser, J. C. (1992). Sense of humor when coping with life stress. Personality & Individual
Differences, 13(7), 799-804.
Owren, M. J., & Bachorowski, J.-A. (2001). The evolution of emotional experience: A "selfish-
gene" account of smiling and laughter in early hominids and humans. In T. J. Mayne &
G. A. Bonanno (Eds.), Emotions: Currrent issues and future directions (pp. 152-191). New
York, NY: Guilford.
Owren, M. J., & Bachorowski, J.-A. (2003). Reconsidering the evolution of nonlinguistic com-
munication: The case of laughter. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 27(3), 183-200.
Palmer, C. T. (1993). Anger, aggression, and humor in Newfoundland floor hockey: An evolu-
tionary analysis. Aggressive Behavior, 19(3), 167-173.
Panksepp, J. (1993). Neurochemical control of moods and emotions: Amino acids to neu-
ropeptides. In M. Lewis & J. M. Haviland (Eds.), Handbook of emotions (pp. 87-107). New
York: Guilford.
Panksepp, J. (1994). The clearest physiological distinctions between emotions will be found
among the circuits of the brain. In P. Ekman & R. J. Davidson (Eds.), The nature of emotion:
Fundamental questions (pp. 258-260). New York: Oxford University Press.
Panksepp, J. (1998). Affective neuroscience: The foundations of human and animal emotions. New
York: Oxford University Press.
Panksepp, J. (2000). The riddle of laughter: Neural and psychoevolutionary underpinnings of
joy. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 9(6), 183-186.
Panksepp, J., & Burgdorf, J. (2000). 50-kHz chirping (laughter?) in response to conditioned
and unconditioned tickle-induced reward in rats: Effects of social housing and genetic vari-
ables. Behavioural Brain Research, 115(1), 25-38.
Panksepp, J., & Burgdorf, J. (2003). "Laughing" rats and the evolutionary antecedents of human
joy? Physiology & Behavior, 79(3), 533-547.
Park, R. (1977). A study of children's riddles using Piaget-derived definitions. Journal of Genetic
Psychology, 130(1), 57-67.
Parrott, W. G., & Gleitman, H. (1989). Infants' expectations in play: The joy of peek-a-boo.
Cognition & Emotion, 5(4), 291-311.
Parvizi, J., Anderson, S. W., Martin, C. O., Damasio, H., & Damasio, A. R. (2001). Patholog-
ical laughter and crying: A link to the cerebellum. Brain, 124(9), 1708-1719.
Paskind, H. A. (1932). Effect of laughter on muscle tone. Archives of Neurology & Psychiatry,
623-628.
Patton, D., Barnes, G. E., & Murray, R. P. (1993). Personality charactistics of smokers and ex-
smokers. Personality & Individual Differences, 15, 653-664.
REFERENCES
Paulos, J. A. (1980). Mathematics and humor. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Pellegrini, D. S., Masten, A. S., Garmezy, N., & Ferrarese, M. J. (1987). Correlates of social
and academic competence in middle childhood. Journal of Child Psychology & Psychiatry &
Allied Disciplines, 28(5), 699-714.
Perera, S., Sabin, E., Nelson, P., & Lowe, D. (1998). Increases in salivary lysozyme and
IgA concentrations and secretory rates independent of salivary flow rates following
viewing of a humorous videotape. International Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 5(2),
118-128.
Peterson, J. P., & Pollio, H. R. (1982). Therapeutic effectiveness of differentially targeted
humorous remarks in group psychotherapy. Group, 5(4), 39-50.
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). Communication and persuasion. New York: Springer-
Verlag.
Pexman, P. M., & Harris, M. (2003). Children's perceptions of the social functions of verbal
irony. Discourse Processes, 36(3), 147-165.
Pexman, P. M., & Zvaigzne, M. T. (2004). Does irony go better with friends? Metaphor 6"
Symbol, 19(2), 143-163.
Piaget, J. (1970). Piaget's theory. In P. H. Mussen (Ed.), Carmichael's manual of child psychology
(3rd ed., Vol. 1, pp. 703-732). New York: Wiley.
Pien, D., & Rothbart, M. K. (1976). Incongruity and resolution in children's humor: A reex-
amination. Child Development, 47(4), 966-971.
Pien, D., & Rothbart, M. K. (1977). Measuring effects of incongruity and resolution in
children's humor. In A. J. Chapman & H. C. Foot (Eds.), It's a funny thing, humour
(pp. 211-213). Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Pien, D., & Rothbart, M. K. (1980). Incongruity humour, play, and self-regulation of arousal
in young children. In P. E. McGhee & A. J. Chapman (Eds.), Children's humour (pp. 1-26).
Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
Pierce, R. A. (1994). Use and abuse of laughter in psychotherapy. In H. S. Strean (Ed.), The
use of humor in psychotherapy (pp. 105-1 1 1). Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson.
Pinderhughes, E. E., & Zigler, E. (1985). Cognitive and motivational determinants of children's
humor responses. Journal of Research in Personality, 19(2), 185-196.
Plutchik, R. (1991). Emotions and evolution. In K. T. Strongman (Ed.), International review of
studies in emotion (pp. 37-58). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons\
Poeck, K. (1985). Pathological laughter and crying. In P. J. Vmken, G. W. Bruyn & H. L.
Klawans (Eds.), Handbook of clinical neurology (Vol. 45, pp. 219-225). Amsterdam: Elsevier
Science Publishers.
Pollio, H. R., & Mers, R. W. (1974). Predictability and the appreciation of comedy. Bulletin of
the Psychonomic Society, 4(4- A), 229-232.
Pollio, H. R., Mers, R. W, & Lucchesi, W. (1972). Humor, laughter, and smiling: Some pre-
liminary observations of funny behaviors. In J. H. Goldstein & P. E. McGhee (Eds.), The
psychology of humor: Theoretical perspectives and empirical issues (pp. 211-239). New York:
Academic Press.
Porterfield, A. L. (1987). Does sense of humor moderate the impact of life stress on psycho-
logical and physical well-being? Journal of Research in Personality, 21(3), 306-317.
Porterfield, A. L., Mayer, F. S., Dougherty, K. G., Kredich, K. E., Kronberg, M. M., Marsee,
K. M., et al. (1988). Private self-consciousness, canned laughter, and responses to humor-
ous stimuli. Journal of Research in Personality, 22(4), 409-423.
Powell, J. P., & Andresen, L. W. (1985). Humour and teaching in higher education. Studies in
Higher Education, 10(1), 79-90.
REFERENCES
Prasinos, S., & Tittler, B. I. (1981). The family relationships of humor-oriented adolescents.
Journal of Personality, 49(3), 295-305.
Prentice, N. M., & Fathman, R. E. (1975). Joking riddles: A developmental index of children's
humor. Developmental Psychology, 11(2), 210-216.
Prerost, F. J. (1977). Environmental conditions affecting the humour response: Developmen-
tal trends. In A. J. Chapman & H. C. Foot (Eds.), It's a funny thing, humour (pp. 439-441).
Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Prerost, F. J. (1983). Changing patterns in the response to humorous sexual stimuli: Sex roles
and expression of sexuality. Social Behavior & Personality, 11(1), 23-28.
Prerost, F. J. (1984). Reactions to humorous sexual stimuli as a function of sexual activeness
and satisfaction. Psychology: A Journal of Human Behavior, 21(1), 23-27.
Prerost, F. J. (1988). Use of humor and guided imagery in therapy to alleviate stress. Journal of
Mental Health Counseling, 10(1), 16-22.
Prerost, F. J. (1993). A strategy to enhance humor production among elderly persons: Assist-
ing in the management of stress. Activities, Adaptation & Aging, 17(4), 17-24.
Prerost, F. J., & Brewer, R. E. (1977). Humor content preferences and the relief of experi-
mentally aroused aggression. Journal of Social Psychology, 103(2), 225-231.
Prerost, F. J., & Ruma, C. (1987). Exposure to humorous stimuli as an adjunct to muscle relax-
ation training. Psychology: A Journal of Human Behavior, 24(4), 70-74.
Preuschoft, S., & van Hooff, J. A. (1997). The social function of "smile" and "laughter": Vari-
ations across primate species and societies. In U. C. Segerstrale & P. Molnar (Eds.), Non-
verbal communication: Where nature meets culture (pp. 171-190). Hillsdale, NJ, England:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Priest, R. F., & Swain, J. E. (2002). Humor and its implications for leadership effectiveness.
Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 15(1), 169-189.
Priest, R. F, & Thein, M. T. (2003). Humor appreciation in marriage: Spousal similarity, assor-
tative mating, and disaffection. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 16(1),
63-78.
Provine, R. R. (1992). Contagious laughter: Laughter is a sufficient stimulus for laughs and
smiles. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 30(1), 1-4.
Provine, R. R. (1993). Laughter punctuates speech: Linguistic, social and gender contexts of
laughter. Ethology, P5(4), 291-298.
Provine, R. R. (1996). Laughter. American Scientist, 84, 38-45.
Provine, R. R. (2000). Laughter: A scientific investigation. New York: Penguin.
Provine, R. R. (2004). Laughing, tickling, and the evolution of speech and self. Current Direc-
tions in Psychological Science, 13(6), 215-218.
Provine, R. R., & Fischer, K. R. (1989). Laughing, smiling, and talking: Relation to sleeping
and social context in humans. Ethology, 83(4), 295-305.
Provine, R. R., & Yong, Y. L. (1991). Laughter: A stereotyped human vocalization. Ethology,
89(2), 115-124.
Rackl, L. (2003). But seriously folks: Humor can keep you healthy. Reader's Digest (September),
62-71.
Radcliffe-Brown, A. R. (1952). Structure and Junction in primitive society: Essays and addresses. New
York: Free Press.
Ramachandran, V. S. (1998). The neurology and evolution of humor, laughter, and smiling:
The false alarm theory. Medical Hypotheses, 51, 351-354.
Rapp, A. (1951). The origins of -wit and humor. Oxford, England: Dutton.
Raskin, V. (1985). Semantic mechanisms of humor. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.
REFERENCES
Redlich, F. C., Levine, J., & Sohler, T. P. (1951). A Mirth Response Test: preliminary report
on a psychodiagnostic technique utilizing dynamics of humor. American Journal ofOrthopsy-
chiatry, 21, 717-734.
Reis, H. T. (2001). Relationship experiences and emotional well-being. In C. D. Ryff & B. H.
Singer (Eds.), Emotion, social relationships, and health (pp. 57-86). New York: Oxford Uni-
versity Press.
Reis, H. T., & Gable, S. L. (2000). Event-sampling and other methods for studying everyday
experience. In H. T. Reis & C. M. Judd (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in social and
personality psychology (pp. 190-222). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Richman, J. (1995). The lifesaving function of humor with the depressed and suicidal elderly.
Gerontologist, 35(2), 271-273.
Richman, J. (2003). Therapeutic humor with the depressed and suicidal elderly. In C. E.
Schaefer (Ed.), Play therapy with adults (pp. 166-192). New York, NY: John Wiley &
Sons.
Rim, Y. (1988). Sense of humour and coping styles. Personality & Individual Differences, 9(3),
559-564.
Ritchie, G. (1999). Developing the incongruity-resolution theory. Paper presented at the AISB
Symposium on Creative Language: Stories and Humour, Edinburgh.
Ritchie, G. (2001). Current directions in computational humour. Artificial Intelligence Review,
16(2), 119-135.
Ritchie, G. (2004). The linguistic analysis of jokes. London: Routledge.
Ritchie, G. (in press). Reinterpretation and viewpoints. Humor: International Journal of Humor
Research.
Rizzolatti, G., & Craighero, L. (2004). The mirror-neuron system. Annual Review ofNeuro-
science, 27, 169-192.
Robinson, D. T, & Smith-Lovin, L. (2001). Getting a laugh: Gender, status, and humor in
task discussions. Social Forces, 80(1), 123-158.
Roeckelein, J. E. (2002). The psychology of humor: A reference guide and annotated bibliography.
Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
Rosenheim, E., & Golan, G. (1986). Patients' reactions to humorous interventions in psy-
chotherapy. American Journal of Psychotherapy, 40(1), 110-124.
Rosenheim, E., Tecucianu, E, & Dimitrovsky, L. (1989). Schizophrenics' appreciation of
humorous therapeutic interventions. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 2(2),
141-152.
Rosenwald, G. C. (1964). The relation of drive discharge to the enjoyment of humor. Journal
of Personality, 52(4), 682-698.
Rothbart, M. K. (1976). Incongruity, problem-solving and laughter. In A. J. Chapman & H. C.
Foot (Eds.), Humor and laughter: Theory, research, and applications (pp. 37-54). London: John
Wiley & Sons.
Rotton, J. (1992). Trait humor and longevity: Do comics have the last laugh? Health Psychology,
11(4), 262-266.
Rotton, J., & Shats, M. (1996). Effects of state humor, expectancies, and choice on postsurgi-
cal mood and self-medication: A field experiment. Journal of Applied Social Psychology,
25(20), 1775-1794.
Rowe, D. C. (1997). Genetics, temperament, and personality. In R. Hogan, J. Johnson & S.
Briggs (Eds.), Handbook of personality psychology (pp. 367-386). San Diego: Academic Press.
Ruch, W. (1981). Humor and personality: A three-modal analysis. Zeitschrift fur Differentielle
und Diagnostische Psychologic, 2, 253-273.
REFERENCES
Ruch, W. (1983). Humor-Test 3 WD (Forms A, B, and ^.Unpublished manuscript, University
6f Dusseldorf, Germany.
Ruch, W. (1984). Conservatism and the appreciation of humor. Zeitschrift fur Differentielle und
Diagnostische Psychologic, 5, 221-245.
Ruch, W. (1988). Sensation seeking and the enjoyment of structure and content of humour:
Stability of findings across four samples. Personality 6" Individual Differences, 9(5), 861-
871.
Ruch, W. (1992). Assessment of appreciation of humor: Studies with the 3 WD Humor Test.
In C. D. Spielberger & J. N. Butcher (Eds.), Advances in personality assessment (Vol. 9,
pp. 27-75). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Ruch, W. (1993). Exhilaration and humor. In M. Lewis & J. M. Haviland (Eds.), Handbook of
emotions (pp. 605-616). New York, NY: Guilford.
Ruch, W. (1994). Temperament, Eysenck's PEN system, and humor- related traits. Humor:
International Journal of Humor Research, 7(3), 209-244.
Ruch, W. (1997). State and trait cheerfulness and the induction of exhilaration: A FAGS study.
European Psychologist, 2(4), 328-341.
Ruch, W. (1998a). Sense of humor: A new look at an old concept. In W. Ruch (Ed.), The sense
of humor: Explorations of a personality characteristic (pp. 3-14). Berlin, Germany: Mouton de
Gruyter.
Ruch, W. (1998b). The sense of humor: Explorations of a personality characteristic. Berlin, Germany:
Mouton de Gruyter.
Ruch, W. (1999). The sense of nonsense lies in the nonsense of sense. Comment on Paolillo's
(1998) "Gary Larsen's Far Side: Nonsense? Nonsense!" Humor: International Journal of
Humor Research, 12(1), 71-93.
Ruch, W., Attardo, S., & Raskin, V. (1993). Toward an empirical verification of the General
Theory of Verbal Humor. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 6(2), 123-136.
Ruch, W., Busse, P., & Hehl, F.-J. (1996). Relationship between humor and proposed punish-
ment for crimes: Beware of humorous people. Personality & Individual Differences, 20(1),
1-11.
Ruch, W., & Carrell, A. (1998). Trait cheerfulness and the sense of humour. Personality & Indi-
vidual Differences, 24(4), 551-558.
Ruch, W., & Deckers, L. (1993). Do extraverts "like to laugh"? An analysis of the Situational
Humor Response Questionnaire (SHRQ). European Journal of Personality, 7(4), 211-220.
Ruch, W., & Ekman, P. (2001). The expressive pattern of laughter. In A. Kaszniak (Ed.),
Emotion, qualia and consciousness (pp. 426-443). Tokyo: World Scientific.
Ruch, W, & Forabosco, G. (1996). A cross-cultural study of humor appreciation: Italy and
Germany. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 9(1), 1-18.
Ruch, W, & Hehl, F.-J. (1986a). Conservatism as a predictor of responses to humour: I. A com-
parison of four scales. Personality 6" Individual Differences, 7(1), 1-14.
Ruch, W, & Hehl, F.-J. (1986b). Conservatism as a predictor of responses to humour: II. The
location of sense of humour in a comprehensive attitude space. Personality & Individual Dif-
ferences, 7(6), 861-874.
Ruch, W, & Hehl, F.-J. (1987). Personal values as facilitating and inhibiting factors in the
appreciation of humor content. Journal of Social Behavior & Personality, 2(4), 453-472.
Ruch, W, & Hehl, F.-J. (1988). Attitudes to sex, sexual behaviour and enjoyment of humour.
Personality fc Individual Differences, 9(6), 983-994.
Ruch, W, & Hehl, F.-J. (1998). A two-mode model of humor appreciation: Its relation to aes-
thetic appreciation and simplicity-complexity of personality. In W. Ruch (Ed.), The sense
REFERENCES
of humor: Explorations of a personality characteristic (pp. 109-142). Berlin, Germany: Walter
de Gruyter.
Ruch, W., Kohler, G., & Van Thriel, C. (1996). Assessing the "humorous temperament":
Construction of the facet and standard trait forms of the State-Trait-Cherrfulness-
Inventory-STCI. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 9(3-4), 303-339.
Ruch, W., Kohler, G., & van Thriel, C. (1997). To be in good or bad humor: Construction of
the state form of the State-Trait-Cheerfulness-Inventory- STCI. Personality 6" Individual
Differences, 22(4), 477-491.
Ruch, W., & Kohler, G. (1998). A temperament approach to humor. In W. Ruch (Ed.), The
sense of humor: Explorations of a personality characteristic (pp. 203-228). Berlin, Germany:
Walter de Gruyter.
Ruch, W, & Kohler, G. (1999). The measurement of state and trait cheerfulness. In I.
Mervielde, I. J. Deary, F. De Fruyt & F. Ostendorf (Eds.), Personality psychology in Europe
(pp. 67-83). Tilburg, Netherlands: Tilburg University Press.
Ruch, W, McGhee, P. E., & Hehl, F.-J. (1990). Age differences in the enjoyment of
incongruity-resolution and nonsense humor during adulthood. Psychology & Aging, 5(3),
348-355.
Ruch, W, Ott, C., Accoce, J., & Bariaud, F. (1991). Cross-national comparison of humor cat-
egories: France and Germany. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 4(1-A),
391^14.
Ruch, W, & Proyer, R. T. (in press). Gelatophobia: A distinct and useful new concept? Humor:
International Journal of Humor Research.
Rumelhart, D. E., & Ortony, A. (1977). The representation of meaning in memory. In R. C.
Anderson, R. J. Spiro & W. E. Montague (Eds.), Schooling and the acquisition of knowledge
(pp. 99-135). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Russell, J. A., Bachorowski, J.-A., & Fernandez-Dols, J. M. (2003). Facial and vocal expressions
of emotion. Annual Review of Psychology, 54, 329-349.
Rust, J., & Goldstein,}. (1989). Humor in marital adjustment. Humor: International Journal of
Humor Research, 2(3), 217-223.
Rutherford, K. (1994). Humor in psychotherapy. Individual Psychology, 50(2), 207-222.
Ryan, K. M., & Kanjorski, J. (1998). The enjoyment of sexist humor, rape attitudes, and rela-
tionship aggression in college students. Sex Roles, 38(9-10), 743-756.
Safranek, R., & Schill, T. (1982). Coping with stress: Does humor help. Psychological Reports,
57(1), 222.
Sala, E, Krupat, E., & Roter, D. (2002). Satisfaction and the use of humor by physicians and
patients. Psychology & Health, 17(3), 269-280.
Salameh, W. A. (1987). Humor in integrative short-term psychotherapy (ISTP). In W. F. Fry
& W. A. Salameh (Eds.), Handbook of humor and psychotherapy: Advances in the clinical use of
humor (pp. 195-240). Sarasota, FL: Professional Resource Exchange.
Sander, K., & Scheich, H. (2001). Auditory perception of laughing and crying activates
human amygdala regardless of attentional state. Cognitive Brain Research, 12(2), 181-
198.
Sanders, V. M., Iciek, L., & Kasprowicz, D. J. (2000). Psychosocial factors and humoral immu-
nity. In J. T. Cacioppo, L. G. Tassinary & G. G. Berntson (Eds.), Handbook of psychophys-
iology (2nd ed., pp. 425-455). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Sanderson, C. A. (2004). Health psychology. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Sanville, J. B. (1999). Humor and play. InJ. W. Barren (Ed.), Humor and psyche: Psychoanalytic
perspectives (pp. 31-55). Hillsdale, NJ: Analytic Press.
REFERENCES
Saper, B. (1987). Humor in psychotherapy: Is it good or bad for the client? Professional Psy-
chology: Research & Practice, 18(4), 360-367.
Saper, B. (1995). Joking in the context of political correctness. Humor: International Journal of
Humor Research, 8(1), 65-76.
Saroglou, V. (2003). Humor appreciation as function of religious dimensions. Archiv fur Reli-
gionpsychologie, 24, 144—153.
Saroglou, V., & Scariot, C. (2002). Humor Styles Questionnaire: Personality and educational
correlates in Belgian high school and college students. European Journal of Personality, 16(1),
43-54.
Sayre, J. (2001). The use of aberrant medical humor by psychiatric unit staff. Issues in Mental
Health Nursing, 22(7), 669-689.
Scambler, D. J., Harris, M. J., & Milich, R. (1998). Sticks and stones: Evaluations of responses
to childhood teasing. Social Development, 7(2), 234-249.
Schachter, S., & Wheeler, L. (1962). Epinephrine, chlorpromazine, and amusement. Journal of
Abnormal & Social Psychology, 65(2), 121-128.
Schaier, A. H., & Cicirelli, V. G. (1976). Age differences in humor comprehension and appre-
ciation in old age. Journal of Gerontology, 31(5), 577-582.
Schank, R. C., & Abelson, R. (1977). Scripts, plans, goals, and understanding. New York: Wiley.
Schmidt, S. R. (1994). Effects of humor on sentence memory. Journal of Experimental Psychol-
ogy: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 20(4), 953-967.
Schmidt, S. R. (2002). The humour effect: Differential processing and privileged retrieval.
Memory, 10(2), 127-138.
Schmidt, S. R., & Williams, A. R. (2001). Memory for humorous cartoons. Memory & Cogni-
tion, 29(2), 305-311.
Schultz, W. (2002). Getting formal with dopamine and reward. Neuron, 36(2), 241-263.
Segrin, C. (2000). Social skills deficits associated with depression. Clinical Psychology Review,
20(3), 379-403.
Seligman, M. E. P., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive psychology: An introduction.
American Psychologist, 55(1), 5-14.
Seligman, M. E. P., & Peterson, C. (2003). Positive clinical psychology. In L. G. Aspinwall &
U. M. Staudinger (Eds.), A psychology of human strengths: Fundamental questions and future
directions for a positive psychology (pp. 305-317). Washington, DC: American Psychological
Assocation.
Shammi, P., & Stuss, D. T. (1999). Humour appreciation: A role of the right frontal lobe. Brain,
722(4), 657-666.
Shammi, P., & Stuss, D. T. (2003). The effects of normal aging on humor appreciation. Journal
of the International Neuropsychological Society, 9(6), 855-863.
Shapiro, J. P., Baumeister, R. E, & Kessler, J. W. (1991). A three-component model of chil-
dren's teasing: Aggression, humor, and ambiguity. Journal of Social & Clinical Psychology,
70(4), 459-472.
Sharkey, N. E., & Mitchell, D. C. (1985). Word recognition in a functional context: The use
of scripts in reading. Journal of Memory and Language, 24, 253-270.
Sher, P. K., & Brown, S. B. (1976). Gelastic epilepsy: Onset in neonatal period. American Journal
of Diseases of Childhood, 130, 1 126-1 131.
Sherman, L. W. (1988). Humor and social distance in elementary school children. Humor: Inter-
national Journal of Humor Research, 7(4), 389^404.
Shiota, M. N., Campos, B., Keltner, D., & Hertenstein, M. J. (2004). Positive emotion and the
regulation of interpersonal relationships. In P. Philippot & R. S. Feldman (Eds.), The reg-
ulation of emotion (pp. 127-155). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
REFERENCES 41
Shultz, T. R. (1972). The role of incongruity and resolution in children's appreciation of cartoon
humor. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 13(3), 456-477.
Shultz, T. R. (1974a). Development of the appreciation of riddles. Child Development, 45(1),
100-105.
Shultz, T. R. (1974b). Order of cognitive processing in humour appreciation. Canadian Journal
of Psychology, 28(4), 409-420.
Shultz, T. R. (1976). A cognitive-developmental analysis of humour. In A. J. Chapman &
H. C. Foot (Eds.), Humor and laughter: Theory, research, and applications (pp. 11-36).
London: John Wiley & Sons.
Shultz, T. R., & Horibe, F. (1974). Development of the appreciation of verbal jokes. Develop-
mental Psychobiology, 10, 13-20.
Shultz, T. R., & Pilon, R. (1973). Development of the ability to detect linguistic ambiguity.
Child Development, 44(4), 728-733.
Shultz, T. R., & Robillard, J. (1980). The development of linguistic humour in children: Incon-
gruity through rule violation. In P. E. McGhee & A. J. Chapman (Eds.), Children's humour
(pp. 59-90). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
Shultz, T. R., & Scott, M. B. (1974). The creation of verbal humour. Canadian Journal of Psy-
chology, 28(4), 421-425.
Shurcliff, A. (1968). Judged humor, arousal, and the relief theory. Journal of Personality & Social
Psychology, 5(4), 360-363.
Simon, J. M. (1990). Humor and its relationship to perceived health, life satisfaction, and morale
in older adults. Issues in Mental Health Nursing, 11(1), 17-31.
Simons, C. J. R., McCluskey-Fawcett, K. A., & Papini, D. R. (1986). Theoretical and func-
tional perspectives on the development of humor during infancy, childhood, and adoles-
cence. In L. Nahemow, K. A. McCluskey-Fawcett & P. E. McGhee (Eds.), Humor and
aging (pp. 53-80). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
Simpson, J. A., & Weiner, E. S. C. (1989). The Oxford English dictionary (2nd ed., Vol. 7). Oxford:
Clarendon Press.
Singer, D. L. (1968). Aggression arousal, hostile humor, catharsis. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology Monograph Supplement, 8(1), 1-14.
Singer, D. L., Gollob, H. E, & Levine, J. (1967). Mobilization of Inhibitions and the enjoy-
ment of aggressive humor. Journal of Personality, 55(4), 562-569.
Sinnott, J. D., & Ross, B. M. (1976). Comparison of aggression and incongruity as factors in
children's judgments of humor. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 128(2), 241-249.
Smith, J. E., Waldorf, V. A., & Trembath, D. L. (1990). "Single white male looking for thin,
very attractive . . ." Sex Roles, 23(11/12), 675-685.
Smith, P. K. (1982). Does play matter? Functional and evolutionary aspects of animal and
human play. Behavioral & Brain Sciences, 5(1), 139-184.
Smith, R. E. (1973). The use of humor in the counterconditioning of anger responses: A case
study. Behavior Therapy, 4(4), 576-580.
Smith, R. E., Ascough, J. C., Ettinger, R. E, & Nelson, D. A. (1971). Humor, anxiety, and task
performance. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 19(2), 243-246.
Smoski, M. J., & Bachorowski, J.-A. (2003). Antiphonal laughter between friends and strangers.
Cognition & Emotion, 17(2), 327-340.
Snider, J. G., & Osgood, C. E. (1969). Semantic differential technique: A sourcebook. Chicago:
Aldine.
Somerfield, M. R., & McCrae, R. R. (2000). Stress and coping research: Methodological
challenges, theoretical advances, and clinical applications. American Psychologist, 55(6),
620-625.
REFERENCES
Spencer, G. (1989). An analysis of JAP-baiting humor on the college campus. Humor: Interna-
tional Journal of Humor Research, 2(4), 329-348.
Spencer, H. (1860). The physiology of laughter. Macmillan's Magazine, 1, 395-402.
Sperber, D. (1984). Verbal irony: Pretense or echoic mention. Journal of Experimental Psychol-
ogy: General, 113, 130-136.
Spiegel, D., Brodkin, S. G., & Keith-Spiegel, P. (1969). Unacceptable impulses, anxiety and the
appreciation of cartoons. Journal of Protective Techniques and Personality Assessment, 33,
154-159.
Spradley, J. P., & Mann, B. J. (1975). The cocktail waitress: Woman's work in a man's world. New
York: Wiley.
Sprecher, S., & Regan, P. C. (2002). Liking some things (in some people) more than others:
Partner preferences in romantic relationships and friendships. Journal of Social & Personal
Relationships, 19(4), 463-481.
Sroufe, L. A., & Wunsch, J. P. (1972). The development of laughter in the first year of life.
Child Development, 43(4), 1326-1344.
Stearns, F. R. (1972). Laughing: Physiology, pathophysiology, psychology, pathopsychology, and devel-
opment. Oxford, England: Charles C Thomas.
Stewart, M., & Heredia, R. (2002). Comprehending spoken metaphoric reference: A real-time
analysis. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 49, 34-44.
Stillion, J. M., & White, H. (1987). Feminist humor: Who appreciates it and why? Psychology
of Women Quarterly, 11(2), 219-232.
Stone, A. A., Cox, D. S., Valdimarsdottir, H., Jandorf, L., & Neale, J. M. (1987). Evidence that
secretory IgA antibody is associated with daily mood. Journal of Personality & Social Psy-
chology, 52(5), 988-993.
Strack, E, Martin, L. L., & Stepper, S. (1988). Inhibiting and facilitating conditions of the
human smile: A nonobtrusive test of the facial feedback hypothesis. Journal of Personality
6- Social Psychology, 54(5), 768-777.
Strean, H. S. (1994). The use of humor in psychotherapy. Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson.
Strickland, J. F. (1959). The effect of motivational arousal on humor preferences. Journal of
Abnormal & Social Psychology, 59, 278-281.
Strother, G. B., Barnett, M. M., & Apostolakos, P. C. (1954). The use of cartoons as a projec-
tive device. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 10, 38—42.
Struthers, A. (2003). No laughing! Playing with humor in the classroom. In A. J. Klein (Ed.),
Humor in children's lives: A guidebook for practitioners (pp. 85-94). Westport, CT: Praeger.
Sullivan, K., Winner, E., & Hopfield, N. (1995). How children tell a lie from a joke: The role
of second-order mental state attributions. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 13(2),
191-204.
Suls, J. M. (1972). A two-stage model for the appreciation of jokes and cartoons: An informa-
tion-processing analysis. In J. H. Goldstein & P. E. McGhee (Eds.), The psychology of humor:
Theoretical perspectives and empirical issues (pp. 81-100). New York: Academic Press.
Suls, J. M. (1977). Cognitive and disparagement theories of humour: A theoretical and empir-
ical synthesis. In A. J. Chapman & H. C. Foot (Eds.), It's a funny thing, humour (pp. 41^-5).
Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Suls, J. M. (1983). Cognitive processes in humor appreciation. In P. E. McGhee & J. H.
Goldstein (Eds.), Handbook of humor research, Vol. 1: Basic issues (pp. 39-57). New York:
Springer-Verlag.
Sumners, A. D. (1988). Humor: Coping in recovery from addiction. Issues in Mental Health
Nursing, 9, 169-179.
REFERENCES
Surkis, A. A. (1993). Humor in relation to obsessive-compulsive processes. In W. F. Fry &
W. A. Salameh (Eds.), Advances in humor and psychotherapy (pp. 121-141). Sarasota, FL:
Professional Resource Press.
Sutton-Smith, B. (2003). Play as a parody of emotional vulnerability. In D. E. Lytle (Ed.), Play
and educational theory and practice (pp. 3-17). Westport, CT: Praeger.
Svebak, S. (1974a). Revised questionnaire on the sense of humor. Scandinavian Journal of Psy-
chology, 75,328-331.
Svebak, S. (1974b). A theory of sense of humor. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 75(2), 99-
107.
Svebak, S. (1975). Respiratory patterns as predictors of laughter. Psychophysiology, 72(1), 62-65.
Svebak, S. (1977). Some characteristics of resting respiration as predictors of laughter. In A. J.
Chapman & H. C. Foot (Eds.), It's a funny thing, humour (pp. 101-104). Oxford: Perga-
mon Press.
Svebak, S. (1982). The effect of mirthfulness upon amount of discordant right-left occipital
EEC alpha. Motivation & Emotion, 6(2), 133-147.
Svebak, S. (1996). The development of the Sense of Humor Questionnaire: From SHQ to
SHQ-6. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 9(3-4), 341-361.
Svebak, S., & Apter, M. J. (1987). Laughter: An empirical test of some reversal theory hypothe-
ses. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 28(3), 189-198.
Svebak, S., Gotestam, K. G., & Jensen, E. N. (2004). The significance of sense of humor, life
regard, and stressors for bodily complaints among high school students. Humor: Interna-
tional Journal of Humor Research, 17(1-2), 67-83.
Svebak, S., & Martin, R. A. (1997). Humor as a form of coping. In S. Svebak & M. J. Apter
(Eds.), Stress and health: A reversal theory perspective (pp. 173-184). Washington, DC: Taylor
& Francis.
Svebak, S., Martin, R. A., & Holmen, J. (2004). The prevalence of sense of humor in a large,
unselected county population in Norway: Relations with age, sex, and some health indi-
cators. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 77(1-2), 121-134.
Szabo, A. (2003). The acute effects of humor and exercise on mood and anxiety. Journal of
Leisure Research, 35(2), 152-162.
Szabo, A., Ainsworth, S. E., & Danks, P. K. (2005). Experimental comparison of the psycho-
logical benefits of aerobic exercise, humor, and music. Humor: International Journal of
Humor Research, 18(3), 235-246.
Talbot, L. A., & Lumden, D. B. (2000). On the association between humor and burnout. Humor:
International Journal of Humor Research, 73(4), 419-428.
Tamblyn, D. (2003). Laugh and learn: 95 ways to use humor for more effective teaching and train-
ing. New York: Amcom.
Tannen, D. (1986). That 's not what I meant. New York: William Morrow.
Tannen, D. (1990). You just don't understand. New York: Ballantine.
Tellegen, A., Lykken, D. T, Bouchard, T J., Wilcox, K. J., et al. (1988). Personality similarity
in twins reared apart and together. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 54(6),
1031-1039.
Tennen, H., Affleck, G., Armeli, S., & Carney, M. A. (2000). A daily process approach to coping:
Linking theory, research, and practice. American Psychologist, 55(6), 626-636.
Terrion, J. L., & Ashforth, B. E. (2002). From "I" to "we": The role of putdown humor and
identity in the development of a temporary group. Human Relations, 55(1), 55-88.
Terry, R. L., & Ertel, S. L. (1974). Exploration of individual differences in preferences for
humor. Psychological Reports, 34(3, Pt 2), 1031-1037.
REFERENCES
Teslow, J. L. (1995). Humor me: A call for research. Educational Technology Research 6" Develop-
ment, 43(3), 6-28.
Teyber, E. (1988). Interpersonal process in psychotherapy: A guide for clinical training. Chicago:
Dorsey Press.
Thomas, C. A., & Esses, V. M. (2004). Individual differences in reactions to sexist humor. Group
Processes & Intergroup Relations, 7(1), 89-100.
Thorson, J. A. (1990). Is propensity to laugh equivalent to sense of humor? Psychological Reports,
55(3, Pt 1), 737-738.
Thorson, J. A., & Powell, F. C. (1993a). Development and validation of a multidimensional
sense of humor scale. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 49(1), 13-23.
Thorson, J. A., & Powell, F. C. (1993b). Relationships of death anxiety and sense of humor.
Psychological Reports, 72(3, Pt 2), 1364-1366.
Thorson, J. A., & Powell, F. C. (1994). Depression and sense of humor. Psychological Reports,
75(3, Pt.2), 1473-1474.
Thorson, J. A., & Powell, F. C. (1996). Women, aging, and sense of humor. Humor: Interna-
tional Journal of Humor Research, 9(2), 169-186.
Thorson, J. A., Powell, F. C., Sarmany-Schuller, I., & Hampes, W. P. (1997). Psychological
health and sense of humor. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 55(6), 605-619.
Torrance, E. P. (1966). Torrance tests of creative thinking. Princeton, NJ: Personnel Press.
Townsend, M. A., & Mahoney, P. (1981). Humor and anxiety: Effects on class test perform-
ance. Psychology in the Schools, 18(2), 228-234.
Townsend, M. A., Mahoney, P., & Allen, L. G. (1983). Student perceptions of verbal and
cartoon humor in the test situation. Educational Research Quarterly, 7(4), 17-23.
Trappl, R., Petta, P., & Payr, S. (Eds.). (2002). Emotions in humans and artifacts. Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press.
Traylor, G. (1973). Joking in a bush camp. Human Relations, 25(4), 479-486.
Treadwell, Y. (1970). Humor and creativity. Psychological Reports, 25(1), 55-58.
Trice, A. D. (1985). Alleviation of helpless responding by a humorous experience. Psychological
Reports, 57(2), 474.
Trice, A. D., & Price-Greathouse, J. (1986). Joking under the drill: A validity study of the
Coping Humor Scale. Journal of Social Behavior & Personality, 1(2), 265-266.
Trick, L., & Katz, A. (1986). The domain interaction approach to metaphor processing: Relat-
ing individual differences and metaphor characteristics. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity, 1,
203-244.
Turnbull, C. M. (1972). The mountain people. New York: Touchstone.
Turner, R. G. (1980). Self-monitoring and humor production. Journal of Personality, 48(2),
163-172.
Uchino, B. N., Kiecolt-Glaser, J., & Glaser, R. (2000). Psychological modulation of
cellular immunity. In J. T. Cacioppo, L. G. Tassinary & G. G. Berntson (Eds.), Handbook
of psychophysiology (2nd ed., pp. 397^-24). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University
Press.
Ullian, J. A. (1976). Joking at work. Journal of Communication, 25(3), 129-133.
Ullmann, L. P., & Lim, D. T. (1962). Case history material as a source of the identification of
patterns of response to emotional stimuli in a study of humor. Journal of Consulting Psy-
chology, 25(3), 221-225.
Vaid, J. (1999). The evolution of humor: Do those who laugh last? In D. H. Rosen & M. C.
Luebbert (Eds.), Evolution of the psyche (pp. 123-138). Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers/
Greenwood Publishing.
REFERENCES
Vaid, J. (2002). Humor and laughter. In V S. Ramachandran (Ed.), Encyclopedia of the human
brain (Vol. 2, pp. 505-516). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Vaid, J., Hull, R., Heredia, R., Gerkens, D., & Martinez, F. (2003). Getting a joke: The
time course of meaning activation in verbal humor. Journal of Pragmatics, 55(9), 1431-
1449.
Vaillant, G. E. (2000). Adaptive mental mechanisms: Their role in a positive psychology.
American Psychologist, 55(1), 89-98.
Van Giffen, K. (1990). Influence of professor gender and perceived use of humor on course
evaluations. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 3(1), 65-73.
van Hooff, J. A. (1972). A comparative approach to the phylogeny of laughter and smiling. In
R. A. Hinde (Ed.), Non-verbal communication. Oxford, England: Cambridge U. Press.
van Hooff, J. A., & Preuschoft, S. (2003). Laughter and smiling: The intertwining of nature
and culture. In F. B. M. de Waal & P. L. Tyack (Eds.), Animal social complexity: Intelligence,
culture, and individualized societies (pp. 260-287). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
van Wormer, K., & Boes, M. (1997). Humor in the emergency room: A social work perspec-
tive. Health & Social Work, 22(2), 87-92.
Vasey, G. (1877). The philosophy of laughter and smiling (2nd. ed.). London: J. Burns.
Ventis, W. L. (1973). Case history: The use of laughter as an alternative response in system-
atic desensitization. Behavior Therapy, 4(1), 120-122.
Ventis, W. L., Higbee, G., & Murdock, S. A. (2001). Using humor in systematic desensitiza-
tion to reduce fear. Journal of General Psychology, 128(2), 241-253.
Vettin, J., & Todt, D. (2004). Laughter in conversation: Features of occurrence and acoustic
structure. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 28(2), 93-115.
Vilaythong, A. P., Arnau, R. C., Rosen, D. H., & Mascaro, N. (2003). Humor and hope: Can
humor increase hope? Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 16(i), 79-89.
Vinton, K. L. (1989). Humor in the workplace: It is more than telling jokes. Small Group Behav-
ior, 20(2), 151-166.
Wakshlag, J. J., Day, K. D., & Zillmann, D. (1981). Selective exposure to educational televi-
sion programs as a function of differently paced humorous inserts. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 73(1), 27-32.
Walle, A. H. (1976). Getting picked up without being put down: Jokes and the bar rush. Journal
of the Folklore Institute, 13,201-217.
Wanzer, M. B., & Frymier, A. B. (1999). The relationship between student perceptions of
instructor humor and student's reports of learning. Communication Education, 48(1), 48-62.
Wapner, W., Hamby, S., & Gardner, H. (1981). The role of the right hemisphere in the appre-
hension of complex linguistic materials. Brain 6" Language, 14(1), 15-33.
Ward, J. R. (2004). Humor and its association with friendship quality. Unpublished Masters thesis,
University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario.
Warm, T. R. (1997). The role of teasing in development and vice versa. Journal of Developmental
6- Behavioral Pediatrics, 18(2), 97-101.
Warners-Kleverlaan, N., Oppenheimer, L., & Sherman, L. (1996). To be or not to be humor-
ous: Does it make a difference? Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 9(2),
117-141.
Watson, D., & Pennebaker, J. W. (1989). Health complaints, stress, and distress: Exploring the
central role of negative affectivity. Psychological Review, 96, 234-254.
Watson, K. K., Matthews, B. J., & Allman, J. M. (in press). Brain activation during sight gags
and language-dependent humor. Cerebral Cortex.
REFERENCES
Weaver,}., & Zillmann, D. (1994). Effect of humor and tragedy on discomfort tolerance. Per-
ceptual 6- Motor Skills, 78(2), 632-634.
Weaver, J., Zillmann, D., & Bryant, J. (1988). Effects of humorous distortions on children's
learning from educational television: Further evidence. Communication Education, 57(3),
181-187.
Weaver, J. B., Masland, J. L., Kharazmi, S., & Zillmann, D. (1985). Effect of alcoholic intoxi-
cation on the appreciation of different types of humor. Journal of Personality & Social Psy-
chology, 49(3), 781-787.
Wegener, D. T., Petty, R. E., & Smith, S. M. (1995). Positive mood can increase or decrease
message scrutiny: The hedonic contingency view of mood and message processing. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(1), 5-15.
Weinberger, M. G., & Gulas, C. S. (1992). The impact of humor in advertising: A review.
Journal of Advertising, 21(4), 35-59.
Weisenberg, M., Raz, T., & Hener, T. (1998). The influence of film-induced mood on pain
perception. Pain, 76(3), 365-375.
Weisenberg, M., Tepper, L, & Schwarzwald, J. (1995). Humor as a cognitive technique for
increasing pain tolerance. Pain, 63(2), 207-212.
Weisfeld, G. E. (1993). The adaptive value of humor and laughter. Ethology fc Sociobiology, 14(2),
141-169.
White, S., & Camarena, P. (1989). Laughter as a stress reducer in small groups. Humor: Inter-
national Journal of Humor Research, 2(1), 73-79.
White, S., & Winzelberg, A. (1992). Laughter and stress. Humor: International Journal of Humor
Research, 5(4), 343-355.
Whitney, L, & Smith, P. K. (1993). A survey of the nature and extent of bullying in
junior/middle and secondary schools. Educational Research, 35(1), 3-25.
Whitt, J. K., & Prentice, N. M. (1977). Cognitive processes in the development of children's
enjoyment and comprehension of joking riddles. Developmental Psychology, 13(2), 129-136.
Wickberg, D. (1998). The senses of humor: Self and laughter in modern America. Ithaca, NY:
Cornell University Press.
Wicker, E W. (1985). A rhetorical look at humor as creativity. Journal of Creative Behavior, 19(3),
175-184.
Wicker, E W, Barren, W. L., & Willis, A. C. (1980). Disparagement humor: Dispositions and
resolutions. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 39(4), 701-709.
Wicker, E W, Thorelli, I. M., Barren, W. L., & Ponder, M. R. (1981). Relationships among
affective and cognitive factors in humor. Journal of Research in Personality, 15(3), 359-370.
Wild, B., Rodden, E A., Grodd, W, & Ruch, W. (2003). Neural correlates of laughter and
humour. Brain, 126(10), 2121-2138.
Williams, R. B., Haney, T. L., Lee, K. L., Kong, Y. H., Blumenthal, J. A., & Whalen, R. E.
(1980). Type A behavior, hostility, and coronary atherosclerosis. Psychosomatic Medicine,
42(6), 539-549.
Wilson, D. W, & Molleston, J. L. (1981). Effects of sex and type of humor on humor appre-
ciation. Journal of Personality Assessment, 45(1), 90-96.
Wilson, G. D., & Patterson, J. R. (1969). Conservatism as a predictor of humor preferences.
Journal of Consulting 6" Clinical Psychology, 33(3), 271-274.
Wilson, G. D., Rust, J., & Kasriel, J. (1977). Genetic and family origins of humor preferences:
A twin study. Psychological Reports, 41(2), 659-660.
Wilson, W. (1975). Sex differences in response to obscenities and bawdy humor. Psychological
Reports, 37(3, Pt 2), 1074.
REFERENCES
Winner, E., & Leekam, S. (1991). Distinguishing irony from deception: Understanding the
speaker's second-order intention. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 9(2), 257-
270.
Winner, E., Windmueller, G., Rosenblatt, E., Bosco, L., Best, E., & Gardner, H. (1987).
Making sense of literal and nonliteral falsehood. Metaphor & Symbolic Activity, 2(1), 13-
32.
Witztum, E., Briskin, S., & Lerner, V. (1999). The use of humor with chronic schizophrenic
patients. Journal of Contemporary Psychotherapy, 29(3), 223-234.
Wolfenstein, M. (1954). Children's humor: A psychological analysis. Glencoe, IL: The Free Press.
Wolff, H. A., Smith, C. E., & Murray, H. A. (1934). The psychology of humor. Journal of Abnor-
mal & Social Psychology, 28, 341-365.
Wyer, R. S. (2004). Social comprehension and judgment: The role of situation models, narratives, and
implicit theories. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Wyer, R. S., & Collins, J. E. (1992). A theory of humor elicitation. Psychological Review, 99(4),
663-688.
Yalisove, D. (1978). The effect of riddle structure on children's comprehension of riddles. Devel-
opmental Psychology, 14(2), 173-180.
Yarnold, J. K., & Berkeley, M. H. (1954). An analysis of the Cattell-Luborsky Humor Test into
homogeneous scales. Journal of Abnormal & Social Psychology, 49, 543-546.
Yip, J. A., & Martin, R. A. (in press). Sense of humor, emotional intelligence, and social com-
petence. Journal of Research in Personality.
Yoshino, S., Fujimori, J., & Kohda, M. (1996). Effects of mirthful laughter on neuroendocrine
and immune systems in patients with rheumatoid arthritis [letter]. Journal of Rheumatol-
ogy, 23, 793-794.
Yovetich, N. A., Dale, J. A., & Hudak, M. A. (1990). Benefits of humor in reduction of threat-
induced anxiety. Psychological Reports, 66(1), 51-58.
Yukl, G., & Lepsinger, R. (1990). Preliminary report on validation of the Management Prac-
tices Survey. In K. E. Clark & M. B. Clark (Eds.), Measures of leadership (pp. 223-237).
West Orange, NJ.: Leadership Library of America.
Zajdman, A. (1995). Humorous face-threatening acts: Humor as strategy. Journal of Pragmat-
ics, 23(3), 325-339.
Zeilig, G., Drubach, D. A., Katz-Zeilig, M., & Karatinos, J. (1996). Pathological laughter and
crying in patients with closed traumatic brain injury. Brain Injury, 10(8), 591-597.
Ziegler, V., Boardman, G., & Thomas, M. D. (1985). Humor, leadership, and school climate.
Clearing House, 58, 346-348.
Zigler, E., Levine, J., & Gould, L. (1966). Cognitive processes in the development of children's
appreciation of humor. Child Development, 37(3), 507-518.
Zigler, E., Levine, J., & Gould, L. (1967). Cognitive challenge as a factor in children's humor
appreciation. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 5(3), 332-336.
Zillmann, D., & Bryant, J. (1974). Retaliatory equity as a factor in humor appreciation. Journal
of Experimental Social Psychology, 10(5), 480-488.
Zillmann, D., & Bryant, J. (1980). Misattribution theory of tendentious humor. Journal of Exper-
imental Social Psychology, 16(2), 146-160.
Zillmann, D., Bryant, J., & Cantor, J. R. (1974). Brutality of assault in political cartoons affect-
ing humor appreciation. Journal of Research in Personality, 7(4), 334-345.
Zillmann, D., & Cantor, J. R. (1972). Directionality of transitory dominance as a communica-
tion variable affecting humor appreciation. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 24(2),
191-198.
REFERENCES
Zillmann, D., & Cantor, J. R. (1976). A disposition theory of humour and mirth. In A. J.
Chapman & H. C. Foot (Eds.), Humor and laughter: Theory, research, and applications
(pp. 93-115). London: John Wiley & Sons.
Zillmann, D., et al. (1980). Acquisition of information from educational television programs as
a function of differently paced humorous inserts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 72(2),
170-180.
Zillmann, D., Masland, J. L., Weaver, J. B., Lacey, L. A., Jacobs, N. E., Dow, J. H., et al. (1984).
Effects of humorous distortions on children's learning from educational television. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 76(5), 802-812.
Zillmann, D., Rockwell, S., Schweitzer, K., & Sundar, S. S. (1993). Does humor facilitate coping
with physical discomfort? Motivation & Emotion, 17(1), 1-21.
Ziv, A. (1976). Facilitating effects of humor on creativity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 68(5),
318-322.
Ziv, A. (1980). Humor and creativity. Creative Child 6- Adult Quarterly, 5(3), 159-170.
Ziv, A. (1981). The self concept of adolescent humorists. Journal of Adolescence, 4(2), 187-197.
Ziv, A. (1984). Personality and sense of humor. New York: Springer.
Ziv, A. (1988a). Humor's role in married life. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research,
1(3), 223-229.
Ziv, A. (1988b). Teaching and learning with humor: Experiment and replication. Journal of
Experimental Education, 57(1), 5-15.
Ziv, A., & Gadish, O. (1989). Humor and marital satisfaction. Journal of Social Psychology, 129(6),
759-768.
Ziv, A., & Gadish, O. (1990). The disinhibiting effects of humor: Aggressive and affective
responses. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 3(3), 247-257.
Zwerling, I. (1955). The favorite joke in diagnostic and therapeutic interviewing. Psychoanalytic
Quarterly, 24, 104-114.
Zweyer, K., Velker, B., & Ruch, W (2004). Do cheerfulness, exhilaration, and humor produc-
tion moderate pain tolerance? A FACS study. Humor: International Journal of Humor
Research, 17(1-2), 85-119.
SUBJECT INDEX
Academic achievement, 262-63, 280, 354-58
Accidental humor. See Unintentional humor
Adrenaline. See Catecholamines
Advertising, 103, 105, 136
Aesthetics, 58, 59, 77, 204
Affiliative humor style. See Humor Styles
Questionnaire
Aggressive aspects of humor, 17-18, 43-^44
and bisociation, 64, 75
and coping with stress, 19, 47^-9
and funniness, 49-50
in incongruity theory, 65-66
in psychoanalytic theory, 33, 34
in superiority/disparagement theory, 11-17
Aggressive humor style. See Humor Styles
Questionnaire
Aging and humor, 263-66
Alcohol consumption, 209, 316, 331
Allergies, 320
Amusement. See Funniness of humor; Mirth
Amygdala, 173, 182, 184
Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, 170
Ankylosing spondylitis, 310
Anti-Semitic humor, 48, 51, 140
Anxiety. See Emotional distress
Anxiety-reduction theory of humor, 36
Ape laughter, 3, 9, 165-68
Aristotle, 22, 44
Arousal boost and arousal jag mechanisms, 58-59, 60
Arousal theories of humor
description, 57-59
empirical investigations, 59-62
evaluation, 57-58
Arousal, physiological, 60-61, 61-62, 76
Art appreciation. See Aesthetics
Artificial intelligence. See Computational approaches to
humor
Association for Applied and Therapeutic Humor
(AATH), 28, 311,335
Asthma, 320
Attachment, 133, 249, 298, 300
Attitudes, 118, 141-43
Attraction. See Interpersonal attraction
Attributions, 132
Authoritarianism, 203, 205
421
422
SUBJECT INDEX
B
Basal ganglia, 171, 173
Bereavement, 161-62, 290
Biblical references to humor and laughter, 21, 43, 309
Biological psychology, 153-54
Bisociation, 7, 63, 85, 115
Blood pressure, 162, 326-27
Brain basis of humor and laughter, 171-73, 176-85
Brain imaging studies, 171, 181-85
Brain injury, 170, 173, 176-79
Brainstem, 170, 173
Broca's area, 182
Burnout. See Emotional distress
Business. See Work
Cancer, 25, 289-90, 304
Canned jokes. See Jokes
Catecholamines, 59, 60, 162
Celebrity roasts, 43, 125
Cerebellum, 173, 175
Cheerfulness, 214-16, 222, 223, 330
Child development
cognitive development and humor, 238-41
cognitive mastery and humor, 243—44
comprehension of incongruity resolution, 67-68,
241-43
comprehension of irony, 245^1-7
conservation and humor, 240, 244, 264
humor comprehension, 238—44
play and humor development, 234-38
sense of humor, 225, 252-59
smiling and laughter, 230-34
Chimpanzee laughter. See Ape laughter
Chlorpromazine, 59
Churchill, Winston, 13
Class clowns, 224, 260
Clinical psychology, 269, 310, 336
Close relationships. See also Dating relationships;
Friendship; Marital relationships
and humor, 143^5, 299-303
and mental health, 297-98
Coercion. See Social influence and control
Cognitive appraisals, 19, 282, 285-86
Cognitive congruency hypothesis, 243-44, 264
Cognitive psychology, 83-84
Collative variables, 58-59, 62, 77
Comedians. See Professional humorists
Communication function of humor, 17-19, 114-16,
352, 361-65, 366-67
Comprehension-elaboration theory of humor, 77-78,
87-88
Computational approaches to humor, 105-8
Concentration camps, 19, 288
Concurrent activation theory, 77, 80, 91, 96
Conflict reduction function of humor, 17, 115, 118-19,
119, 145,298
Conservatism and humor appreciation, 196, 203, 204
Consultants, humor, 360-61
Conversational humor, 11-15, 97-98
Coping styles, 285-87
Coping with stress. See Stress-moderating effects of
humor
Cortisol, 60, 163
Counseling. See Psychotherapy
Creativity
artistic, 77
effects of humor on, 102-3
relation to humor production ability, 218
relation to sense of humor, 101-2, 262, 263
Crying, 170, 184
D
Darwin-Hecker Hypothesis, 174-75
Dating relationships, 134, 144, 145-46, 299, 300
Defense mechanisms, 33, 35, 42, 49, 277, 347
Definition of humor, 5
Dementia, 169
Depression. See Emotional distress
Development of humor. See Child development
Developmental psychology, 229-30
Diabetes, 320-21
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM-IV), 42
Diagnostic uses of humor, 37, 195, 342-43
Diminishment, 77, 79
Disabling mechanism, 164, 188
Disparagement humor, 45, 121, See also Hostile humor;
Teasing
dispositional model, 52
effects on attitudes toward target, 141, 142
effects on tolerance of discrimination, 142-43
enjoyment and attitudes toward target, 51-53,
140-41
in teaching, 358
misattribution theory, 53
Doctor-patient relationship, 345^-6
SUBJECT INDEX
42;
Double entendres, 13, 117
Duchenne display, 160-62, 171, 175, 215, 270, 290, 325
Education
humor and learning, 103, 354-56
humor and the classroom environment, 352-54
humor in tests and exams, 356-57
humor in textbooks, 357-58
potential benefits of humor, 349-50
teachers' use of humor, 351-52
Educational television programs, 354-55
Elaboration Likelihood Model, 137
Electroencephalogram (EEG), 179-81
Emotion regulation, 19, 36, 270, 304, 305, 343
Emotional aspects of humor. See Mirth
Emotional distress
correlation with sense of humor, 273-74, 275-76,
289
effects of humor on, 271, 272
stress-moderating effects of humor, 284-85, 291-93,
294-95
Emotional well-being
correlation with sense of humor, 273-76
effects of humor on, 270-73
healthy versus unhealthy humor styles, 276-82
Empathy, 299, 302, 342, 344
Endocrine system, 162
Endorphins, 169, 311, 314, 326
Epilepsy. See Gelastic seizures
Epinephrine. See Catecholamines
Ethnic jokes, 44, 140
Etymology of humor, 20-2 1
Event-related potentials. See Electroencephalogram
Evolutionary basis of humor, 2-4, 185
Evolutionary functions of humor, 15-20, 114, 185-86
Evolutionary theories of humor, 45, 185-88
Exaggeration, 13, 124
Exhilaration. See Mirth
Extraversion
and brain response to humor, 183
and enjoyment of sexual humor, 196, 198, 199
and health-related behavior, 316
and sense of humor, 202, 209, 220, 222, 276
Face-saving function of humor, 17, 116-17, 125
Facial Action Coding System (FAGS), 161, 175, 325
Factor analysis, 50, 68, 197-202, 221-23
Fantasy assimilation, 66, 237
Far Side cartoons, 201, 254
Farley, Chris, 278
Fight-or-flight response, 60, 162-63
Five Factor Model (FFM), 193, 213, 215, 220
Fixed action pattern, 155
Forms of humor, 10-15, 116
Four-stage model of humor development, 238-41
Frames. See Schemas and scripts
Freudian slips, 14, 337
Freudian theory. See Psychoanalytic theory of humor
Friendship, 134, 300-301
Frontal lobe, 172, 179, 181, 184, 265
Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI), 175,
181-85
Funniness of humor
and aggressive content, 50
and aversiveness, 201
and comprehension difficulty, 243—44
and humor comprehension, 60, 202
and physiological arousal, 60-61, 163
and punch line predictability, 71
and semantic distance, 93-94
and speed of comprehension, 87-88
effects of emotional arousal on, 61-62, 71
Galen, 21
Gallows humor, 48, 118, 289
Gelastic seizures, 170-71, 185
Gelatophobia, 348
Gender differences
brain response to humor, 183
humor and leadership, 368
humor styles, 213, 279
laughter, 157, 158, 233
role of humor in relationships, 299
sense of humor, 147-49, 261
use of humor in teaching, 352-53
General Theory of Verbal Humor (GTVH),
91-92
Genetic factors in humor development, 253-56
Goethe, Johann Wolfgang von, 195
Greeting cards, 43, 125
Group dynamics, 120, 123-24
Group identity and cohesion, 18, 122-23, 187,
364
424
su BIECT INDEX
H
Harassment, 121, 369
Health benefits of humor
blood pressure and heart disease, 326-27
illness symptoms, 327-29
immune system, 316-23
longevity, 329-31
pain, 323-26
popular beliefs, 310-13
potential mechanisms, 313-16
satisfaction with health, 328-29
Health psychology, 309-10
Health-related behavior, 316, 331
Heart disease, 327
Heart rate, 60, 162, 284
Hierarchical Linear Modeling, 295-97, 301, 302
Hippocrates, 20
History of humor concepts, 20-26
Hobbes, Thomas, 22, 44
Hope, 271
Hostile humor. See also Disparagement humor
aggressive personality traits and enjoyment, 38, 39
effect of mobilizing inhibitions on enjoyment, 39
effects of anger arousal on enjoyment, 39-40
effects on aggressiveness, 40
gender differences in enjoyment, 148
in factor analysis, 51, 201
Hostility, 47, 275, 327
H-reflex, 163-64
Humor (narrowly denned)
and mental health, 277
and sense of humor, 192
distinguished from wit, 23
Freudian theory, 35-36
history of the concept, 23-24
Humor appreciation (as response). See Funniness of
humor; Mirth
Humor appreciation (individual differences)
and aggressive personality traits, 5 1
and aging, 265
and anxiety, 196
and conservatism, 196
and everyday humor experience, 206, 209
and humor production ability, 223
and mental health, 37, 294
and sexuality, 38
content-based approach, 196-97
early factor analytic studies, 197-200
genetic factors, 253-54
measures, 37, 196, 199, 200-205
response factors, 201-2
Ruch's factor analytic studies, 200-205
Humor Styles Questionnaire
affiliative humor style, 211, 278, 303
aggressive humor style, 211, 277-78, 303
and aging, 265-66
and interpersonal competence, 301
and mental health, 212-13, 279-81
and relationship satisfaction, 300-301, 302-3
correlations with other humor measures, 212, 279
personality correlates, 213-14
self-defeating humor style, 122, 211, 278, 303
self-enhancing humor style, 211, 278-79, 303
stress-moderating effects, 296-97
test development, 210-12
Humor-and-health movement, 25, 311-12
Hypothalamus, 163, 170, 173, 182
I
Immediacy (in education), 353-54
Immune system
and stress-moderating effects of humor, 293
correlations with sense of humor measures, 321-23
effects of emotions on, 317, 318
experimental studies of humor effects, 3 1 7-2 1
Impression formation. See Social perception
Incongruity, 6, 63, 78, 85
and event-related potentials (EEG), 180-81
and laughter in infants, 231, 232
and the brain, 177-78, 180-81, 182
in children's play, 236
in jokes, 63-64
schema-based explanations, 86-88
Incongruity theory of humor
and tendentious humor, 65-66
description, 62-66
empirical investigations, 66-71
evaluation, 72-75
historical origins, 22
limitations, 64, 70, 74-75
Incongruity-resolution theory of humor
and child development, 67-68, 241-43
and General Theory of Verbal Humor, 91
critique, 69, 72-74, 77
description, 64-66
empirical investigations, 66-68
SUBJECT INDEX
425
Industrial-organizational psychology, 336
Innateness of humor and laughter, 3, 185
Innocent humor. See Nontendentious humor
Insomnia, 294
Intelligence, 203, 216-17, 260, 263
International Journal of Humor Research, 28
International Society for Humor Studies (ISHS), 28
Interpersonal attraction, 132-36
Interpersonal competence, 150, 218, 262-63, 301
Interpersonal conflict. See Conflict reduction function
of humor
Interpersonal functions of humor, 17-19
decommitment, 118-19
discourse management, 123-24
group identity and cohesion, 122-23
in childhood, 249
in the workplace, 361-65
ingratiation, 121-22
norm violation, 118
norms and control, 119-20
play, 124
saving face, 116-17
self-disclosure and social probing, 117-18
status and hierarchy maintenance, 120-21
unconscious nature, 117
Interpersonal nature of humor, 5-6, 42-43, 78, 114-16,
249-50
and coping with stress, 303-5
and mental health, 297-98
and physical health, 315-16
Intimacy, 299, 300
Introversion. See Extraversion
Ironic compliments and insults, 100, 120, 245
Irony
cognitive theories, 98-100
definition, 13, 98
development of comprehension in childhood, 245-47
interpersonal factors in comprehension, 100-101
interpersonal functions, 120
psycholinguistic research on, 98-101
I
Jeer pressure, 127-28
Joke Analysis and Production Engine QAPE), 106-7
Jokes
and incongruity theory, 63-64
and incongruity-resolution theory, 64-66, 67
and psychoanalytic theory, 33-35
and superiority/disparagement theory, 46-47
and the brain, 181-82
as prototype of humor, 1 5
as research stimuli, 14, 37-38, 42, 73, 114, 244-45
difficulty remembering, 104
examples, 7, 11, 12, 34, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 74, 78, 90,
139, 244
gender differences in enjoyment, 148
hostile. See Hostile humor
in conversation, 11-12, 73-74, 243
linguistic script theory, 89-91
sexual. See Sexual jokes
Jokework, 33, 39, 62
Joking relationships, 116
Jonson, Ben, 21
K
Kant, Immanuel, 58
Larsen, Gary, 201, 254
Larynx, 159
Laughing gas, 156, 215
Laughter. See also Mirth
acoustical characteristics, 156-59, 233-34
and emotional well-being, 270
and enjoyment of humor, 59, 202
and facial expression, 160-62
and interpersonal attraction, 133-34
and marital satisfaction, 144
and respiration, 159-60
and smiling, 155, 167-68, 233
and the brain, 171-73, 184
antiphonal, 130-31
as a fixed action pattern, 155
as a reflex, 155
as emotion expression, 9-10, 59, 128, 155-56,
161-62
as signal of friendliness, 129
communication function, 9, 128, 162
contagiousness, 128, 184
description, 9, 154
development in infancy and childhood, 230-34
emotion induction function, 10, 128-29, 130, 162,
187
evolutionary origins, 156, 168, 186-87
gender differences, 148, 157, 158, 233
health benefits, 313-14
426
SUBJECT INDEX
historical attitudes toward, 21-23
in apes. See Ape laughter
in rats, 168-69
in response to tickling, 173-76
in social interaction, 129-30, 232-33
pathological. See Pathological laughter
social bonding function, 130-31
social facilitation, 250
Laughter clubs, 311-12
Lawyer jokes, 141, 142
Leadership, 367-68
Liberalism. See Conservatism and humor appreciation
Liberation, humor as, 48-49
Limbic system, 171, 172, 182-83, 184
Linguistic theories of humor, 89-92
Loneliness, 300
Longevity, 329-31
Ludic system, 109, 168
M
Malapropisms, 14
Mania, 169
Marital relationships, 144-45, 299
Mastery, 48, 248
Mate selection, 134-35, 187-88
Math anxiety, 294
Mathematics of humor, 28
Measures of humor
Coping Humor Scale (CHS), 209-10
Coping Orientations to Problem Experiences
(COPE), 288, 289-90
Humor Styles Questionnaire (HSQ). See Humor
Styles Questionnaire
Humorous Behaviors Q-sort Deck (HBQD), 219-21
IPAT Humor Test of Personality, 199-200
Mirth Response Test, 37, 196
Multidimensional Sense of Humor Scale (MSHS),
212
Relational Humor Inventory, 146
Sense of Humor Questionnaire (SHQ), 206-8
Situational Humor Response Questionnaire (SHRQ),
208-9
State-Trait Cheerfulness Inventory (STCI), 214-16
3 Witz-dimensionen (3WD), 200-205
Wit and Humor Appreciation Test (WHAT), 37
Memory, 103-5, 355-56
Mental health, 269-7 '0, See also Emotional well-being
Mesolimbic reward network, 182-83
Mirror neurons, 128, 184
Mirth
and arousal, 59-60
and pain tolerance, 325-26
and play, 155-56
and the brain, 182-84
and tickling, 174-75
animal models, 168-69
as the emotion of humor, 7-9, 155, 270
cognitive and social functions, 15-17, 186
definition, 8
health benefits, 314-15
psychophysiology, 60, 162-65
Misattribution theory of disparagement humor, 53
Mnemonic technique, 104, 355
Monty Python's Flying Circus, 201
Mourning. See Bereavement
Multiple sclerosis, 170
Muscle tension, 162, 163-64
N
Natural High Thereapy, 338-39
Negotiation and humor, 139, 366-67
Neural basis of humor. See Brain basis of humor and
laughter
Neural network, 107
Neuroticism
and brain response to humor, 183
and Humor Styles Questionnaire, 280
and physical health, 328
and sense of humor, 202, 222, 273, 276
Newspaper headlines, 14
Nitrous oxide. See Laughing gas
Nontendentious humor, 34, 46
Nonverbal humor, 14, 36
Noradrenaline. See Catecholamines
Norepinephrine. See Catecholamines
Nucleus accumbens, 182, 183
Occupational stress, 288-89
Openness to experience, 203
Optimal arousal theory, 58, 62, 76
Optimism, 275-76, 330
Oratory, 136
Organizational culture, 365
Orienting response, 104
Overstatement. See Exaggeration
SUBJECT INDEX
427
Pain tolerance, 323-26
Paradoxical intention, 340-41
Paratelic state. See Reversal theory
Parkinson's disease, 170, 171
Patch Adams, 3 1 1
Pathological laughter, 169-71, 173
Pedagogy. See Education
Peek-a-boo game, 6, 167, 231-32, 236, 237
Person perception. See Social perception
Personal ads, 134
Personality psychology, 191-92
Persuasion, 136-39
Phobias, 339-10
Physical exercise, 271, 312
Physical humor. See Nonverbal humor
Placebo effects, 325
Plato, 44
Play, 59
and aggression, 45, 47, 167
as a social function of humor, 124
as the basis of humor, 5, 75, 166, 185, 234-36
characteristics, 6, 75-76, 234
cognitive aspects, 108-9
development in infancy and childhood, 234-38
evolutionary functions, 185
in nonhuman animals, 165-69
make-believe, 236-37
Play face, 3, 165-67
Political correctness, 140
Political humor, 25, 50
Politicians, 136
Pons, 170, 171, 173
Positive emotion, 7, 16, 138, 315, See also Mirth
Positive psychology, 28, 72
Positron emission tomography (PET), 171
Practical jokes, 45, 126
Prefrontal cortex, 171, 173, 182, 183
Prejudice, 141-43
Prisoners of war, 287-88
Production of humor, 6, 41, 110
and humor comprehension, 262
as an ability, 215, 217-18
stress-moderating effects, 292, 291-92
Professional humorists, 220
longevity, 329-30
personality characteristics, 223-25
Provocative Therapy, 338
Psychiatric hospital staff, 120, 289
Psychiatric patients, 37, 272, 274-75
Psychoanalytic theory of humor
description, 33-36
empirical investigations, 36-41
evaluation, 41 -43
Psycholinguistics, 84, 95-97
Psychology
definition, 26
relative neglect of humor, 27-28, 151
Psychoneuroimmunology, 25, 317
Psychopathy and humor enjoyment, 38
Psychotherapy
applications of humor, 336-37
humor as a therapist skill, 341^-3
humor techniques, 339-41
humor-based therapies, 337-39
research on humor in therapy, 343-46
risks of humor in therapy, 346—49
Puns
and superiority theory, 45^46
definition, 13
examples, 7, 46, 63
interpersonal functions, 46, 123, 124
Putdown humor. See Disparagement humor
R
Racial humor, 51, 369
Rational-Emotive Therapy, 338
Relationship regulation, 114, 116, 186
Relationships. See Close relationships
Relaxation, 164, 272, 323, 326
Relaxed open-mouth display. See Play face
Religiosity and humor appreciation, 202, 203
Remote Associates Test, 102, 217, 218
Reversal theory
empirical investigations, 79-80
evaluation, 80-81
explanation of humor, 75-78
paratelic and telic states, 6, 76
synergy, 7, 76, 78
Riddles, 12, 240
and superiority theory, 45
computer generation, 106-7
development in childhood, 240, 241
Ridicule, 22, 45, 119, See also Disparagement humor
Rorschach inkblot test, 224
Rumination, 281
428
SUBJECT INDEX
Salience hypothesis, 65-66, 68, 70-71, 140
Sarcasm, 13, 98, 99-100, 177, 245^7, 289, See also
Irony
Satire, 13, 118
Scatalogical humor, 46, 196, 248
Schadenfreude, 18
Schemas and scripts
description, 85-86
in humor comprehension, 86-88
in irony comprehension, 99
in linguistic theories of humor, 90-91
in the weight judgment paradigm, 88-89
research using semantic distance techniques, 92-95
research using semantic priming techniques, 95-97
Schizophrenia, 37, 169, 272, 275
use of humor in treatment, 340-41, 344
Schopenhauer, Arthur, 63
Scripts. See Schemas and scripts
Self alienation, 48
Self-defeating humor style. See Humor Styles
Questionnaire
Self-deprecating humor, 13, 47, 135, 283
Self-enhancing humor style. See Humor Styles
Questionnaire
Self-esteem, 48, 52, 261, 274, 276, 293
Self-monitoring, 217-18
Semantic distance, 92-95
Semantic priming techniques, 95-97
Semantic Script Theory of Humor, 89-91
Sensation-seeking, 203
Sense of humor
and aging, 263-66
and coping styles, 285-87
and emotional well-being, 273-82
and immunity, 321-23
and interpersonal attraction, 134-35
and physical health, 327-31
as a multifaceted concept, 193-95, 221-23
as a stress-moderating variable, 291-95
as an ability, 216-19
as humor appreciation, 195-205
as styles of humorous conduct, 219-21
as temperament, 214-16, 254-55
environmental influences on development, 256-59
genetic factors in development, 253-56
history of the concept, 24-26, 192-93
in apes, 3, 166
in childhood, 259-63
modification via training programs, 273, 370-71
popular conceptions, 24-26, 134, 193
self-report scales, 205-16, See also Measures of
humor
social desirability, 24, 26, 134, 193, 206
Sentimentality, 43, 125
Sexist humor, 147, See also Disparagement humor
and harassment, 121, 369
and sexist attitudes, 140-41
effects on tolerance of sexist behavior, 142^-3
Sexual communication, 117-18
Sexual jokes, 34, 118
and sexual disinhibition, 38, 205
effects of sexual arousal on enjoyment, 40-41
gender differences in enjoyment, 147
in 3WD, 201
personality correlates of enjoyment, 38, 196, 198,
205
Sexual selection theory of humor, 187-88
Sexuality and enjoyment of humor, 38, 205
Sick humor, 46, 76, 197, 248
Silent bared-teeth display, 167
Skin conductance, 60, 162, 284
Slapstick comedy, 14, 36, 45, 59, 148
Smiling, 59, 155, 160, 167-68, 171-72, 230, 233, 270
Smoking, 316, 327,331
Social bonding, 122, 130-31
Social comparison, 117-18
Social exclusion, 18, 187, 364
Social functions of humor. See Interpersonal functions
of humor
Social influence and control, 17-19, 119-20, 126
Social nature of humor. See Interpersonal nature of
humor
Social perception, 131-32, 135
Social psychology, 113
Social skills. See Interpersonal competence
Social status, 120-21, 187, 251
Social support, 286, 298, 300, 315
Sociotropy and autonomy, 280
Spontaneous humor. See Conversational humor
Spoonerisms, 14
Stereotypes, 47, 140, 204
Stock conversational witticisms, 13
Stress-moderating effects of humor, 19-20
aggressive humor and coping, 19, 47-49, 282-83,
288
SUBJECT INDEX
429
and emotional well-being, 283-85, 287-97
and physical health, 315, 328
correlational studies, 291-95
experimental investigations, 283-85
gender differences, 149
in childhood, 247^9
in psychoanalytic theory, 3 5
in reversal theory, 81
incongruity and coping, 19, 282
interpersonal aspects, 20, 303-5
process-oriented research approaches, 295-97
sense of humor and coping styles, 285-87
specific life stressors, 287-91
trait cheerfulness and coping, 216
Stroke, 170, 171, 176
Suicide, 275, 350
Superiority/disparagement theory of humor
description, 44-47
empirical investigations, 49-53
evaluation, 53-56
evolutionary basis, 45
implications, 47-49
Supplementary motor area, 172, 182
Sympathetic nervous system, 60-61, 162-63
Sympathy, 23, 24, 49
Synergy. See Reversal theory
Systematic desensitization, 339-40
Teaching. See Education
leasing, 13
aggressive, 44, 126
definition, 124-25
effects on observers, 127-28, 251
effects on targets, 127, 252
face-saving function, 17, 125
friendly, 122-23, 126
gender differences, 149
in children, 44, 250-52
in the workplace, 364, 369
interpersonal functions, 125-27
Television talk shows, 12-13
Telic Dominance Scale, 79
Telic state. See Reversal theory
Temperament, 21, 214-16, 223, 254-55, 262
Tendentiousness, 33, 36, 76, 104, See also Salience
hypothesis
Tender-mindedness. See Tough-mindedness
Tension relief, 19-20, 58, 61-62
Tension-release theory of laughter, 33, 57-58
Thematic Apperception Test, 39, 41, 196, 224
Theory of mind, 178-79, 245^6
Therapeutic clowns, 25, 312
Therapeutic humor. See Psychotherapy
Tickling, 156, 166, 168, 173-76, 230
Toilet humor. See Scatalogical humor
Tolerance for ambiguity, 205
Tough-mindedness, 204-5
Transfer of excitation, 61-62
Twain, Mark, 2 1
Twin studies, 253-55
Two-stage model of humor comprehension, 64-65, 91,
106, 180-81, 200
U
Ubiquity of humor, 10, 116, 362
Understatement. See Exaggeration
Unintentional humor, 14
Universality of humor and laughter, 2, 185
W
Weight judgment paradigm, 68-70, 78, 88-89
Well-being. See Emotional well-being
Wit
as distinct from humor, 22-24
in psychoanalytic theory, 33-35
Witticisms. See Conversational humor
Work
functions of humor in the workplace, 361-65
humor and leadership, 367-68
humor and organizational culture, 365
humor in negotiation and mediation, 139,
366-67
Workplace harassment. See Harassment
AUTHOR INDEX
Abdel-Azim, E, 7, 182, 403
Abel, M. H., 284, 287, 293, 328, 373
Abelson, R. P., 37, 86, 373, 398, 412
AccoceJ., 200,411
Adams, E. R., 272, 373
Adams, P., 373
Adelsward, V., 366, 373
Affleck, G., 296, 415
Agarwal, R., 104, 356, 384
Aharonson, H., 273, 370, 404
Ahleman, S., 319, 321,396
AielloJ. R., 148,377
Ainsworth, M. D. S., 249, 373
Ainsworth, S. E., 271, 415
Alexander, R. D, 18, 54, 187, 373
Allen, L. G., 356, 416
Allin, A., 174, 391
AllmanJ. M., 183,417
Allport, G. W., 25, 192, 193, 277, 283, 306, 373
Alter, K., 184, 402
Alvarado, N., 175, 391
Andersen, J. E, 353, 374
Anderson, C. A, 274, 294, 328, 374
Anderson, E. A., 282, 393
Anderson, S. W., 172, 173, 175, 406
Andresen, L. W., 352, 407
Andrews, R., 193, 374
Anthony, S., 66, 70, 140, 390
Antoni, M. H., 289, 382
Apostolakos, P. C., 195, 414
Apte, M. L., 2, 116,374
Apter, M. J., 6, 7, 70, 75, 76, 78, 79, 85, 88, 91, 109,
124, 214, 222, 234, 350, 355, 374, 382, 404, 415
Arena, P. L, 289, 382
Armeli, S., 296, 415
Arnau, R. C., 271, 417
Arnoult, L. H., 274, 294, 328, 374
Aron, A., 133, 387
AronoffJ., 139,406
Arora, S., 71, 383
Arriaga, X. B., 126, 374
Arroyo, S., 170, 172, 374
AscoughJ. C., 357, 413
Ashforth, B. E., 122, 125, 415
Ashmore, R. D., 134, 385
431
432
AUTHOR INDEX
Askenasy, J. J., 154,374
Aspinwall, L. G., 28, 72, 374
Atsumi, T., 320, 374
Attardo, S., 66, 84, 89, 91, 92, 96, 140, 143, 243, 374,
410
Averill, J. R, 60, 162,374
Azim, E., 154, 183, 202, 374, 403
B
Babad, E. Y, 194,206,218,374
Bachelor, A., 341, 375
Bachg, D., 318, 383
Bachorowski, J.-A., 10, 114, 128, 129, 130, 136, 156,
157, 160, 167, 187, 375, 406, 411, 413
Bainum, C. K., 233, 375
Baker, K. H., 318, 321,384
Ball, R. L., 40, 375
Balshine, S., 187, 188, 377
Banks,}. S., 133, 151,379
Bariaud, E, 200, 239, 375, 411
Barnes, G. E., 316, 406
Barnet, K, 148, 377
Barnett, L. A., 234, 235, 375
Barnett, M. M., 195, 414
Baron, R. A., 40, 375
Barron, W. L., 50, 68, 84, 140, 197, 418
Bartlett, E C., 85, 375
Bartolome-Rull, D. S., 180, 384
Basu, K., 136,380
Bates, E, 103, 395
Bateson, R, 6, 185, 375
Baumeister, R. E, 125, 251, 252, 412
Bedford, A. R, 209, 316, 381
Behnke, E.J., 172, 182,388
Beit-Hallahmi, B., 288, 377
Belanger, H. G., 102, 375
Belanger, K. A., 286, 396
Bell, N. J., 218, 223, 256, 258, 299, 375, 402
Bell, S. M, 249, 373
Benedetti, E, 325, 375
Berg, K, 259, 384
Bergen, D., 234, 235, 238, 245, 375
Berger, A. A., 32, 375
Bergmann, M. S., 336, 376
Bergson, H., 44, 376
Berk, L. S., 319, 326,376
Berk, R. A, 350, 376
Berkeley, M. H., 199, 419
Berkowitz, J., 132, 384
Berkowitz, L., 40, 376
Berlyne, D. E., 27, 58, 75, 85, 234, 376
Bernet, W., 336, 376
Berns, G. S., 72, 376
Bernstein, D. K., 350, 376
Berntson, G. G., 162, 164, 378
Berscheid, E., 298, 376
Besemer, S. P., 101, 376
Bess, B. E., 224, 393
Best, E, 245, 419
Bihrle, A., 376
Bihrle, A. M., 177, 178, 376
Bill, B, 141, 376
Binsted, K., 105, 106, 107, 376
Bippus, A. M., 299, 305, 376, 377
Bittman, B. B., 319, 376
Bizi, S., 288, 377
Blakemore, S. J., 175,377
Blasko, D. G., 84, 99, 100, 394
Blissett, S. E, 274, 293, 404
Bloch, S., 336, 377
Blumenthal, J. A., 327,418
Boardman, G., 350, 419
Boes, M, 290, 417
Bogart, E. H., 180, 384
BollmerJ. M., 252, 398
Bonanno, G. A., 161, 290, 377, 394
BonoJ. E, 360, 393
Booth, R.J., 317, 331, 333,377
Boothroyd, R. A, 356, 357, 402
Borcherdt, B., 336, 377
Borowicz-Sibenik, M., 273, 396
Bosco, L., 245, 419
Bouchard, T.J., 255, 415
BowlbyJ, 298, 377
Boyle, G.J., 328,377
Bradbury, T. N., 145, 299, 381
Brandsma, J., 385
Branigan, C., 16, 186, 387
Breckler, S. J., 113,377
Bressler, E. R., 187, 188, 377
Brewer, R. E., 40, 408
BrinkerJ., 280, 387
Briskin, S., 336, 341, 419
Britton, R., 156, 399
Brodkin, S. G., 196, 414
Brodzinsky, D. M., 148, 218, 263, 377
AUTHOR INDEX
433
Bronnec, M., 275, 381
Brooks, G. P., 89, 390
BrooksJ. L., 294, 387
Brown, C. V, 173,402
Brown, D., 129, 251, 357, 358, 377, 378
Brown, G. E., 129, 250, 377
Brown, P, 125, 377
Brown, R. B., 377
Brown, S. B., 3, 170, 185, 412
Brown, S. L., 160, 377
Brown, W. E, 352, 387
Brown, W. I., 336, 382
Brownell, H., 391
Brownell, H. H., 177, 178, 376, 377, 378
Browning, S., 336
Browning, S., 377
Bruehl, S., 315, 378
Brust, R. G., 144, 404
Bryant, E B., 319, 404
BryantJ., 50, 52, 53, 61, 79, 251, 351, 352, 353, 357,
358, 359, 378, 379, 395, 418, 419
Bryk, A. S, 296, 378
Buckman, E. S., 336, 378
Buhrmester, D., 301, 378
BurgdorfJ., 109, 168, 174, 315, 333, 406
Burke, K. L., 284, 397
Burkhead, E.J., 274, 379
Burling, R., 3, 378
Burns, V. E, 162, 164, 318, 319, 391
Burroughs, WJ., 325, 399
Bush, B. A., 197, 248, 392
BushJ. E., 142,399
Buss, A. H, 254, 378
Buss, D. M., 298, 378
Buss, K. A., 254, 255, 389
Busse, P., 203, 410
Butovskaya, M. L., 167, 378
Buttram, R. T., 88, 383
Byrne, D., 38, 41, 51, 378
CacioppoJ. T, 137, 162, 164, 378, 407
Calhoun, L. G., 133, 134, 135, 151, 193, 284, 378,
379
Camarena, P., 272, 326, 418
Campbell, L., 302, 400
Campos, B., 8, 10, 16, 114, 186, 298, 412
Campos,;.;., 254
Cann, A., 133, 134, 135, 151, 193, 284, 378, 379
CantorJ. R., 50, 51, 52, 61, 79, 140, 147, 197, 379,
419, 420
Capps, L., 17, 125, 151,251,394
Carlson, C.R., 315, 378
Carney, M. A, 296, 415
CaronJ. E., 3, 185,379
Carpenter, E., 156, 399
Carr, D. E., 50, 383
Carrell, A., 168,315,410
Carrere, S., 145, 304, 390
Carroll, D., 162, 164, 318, 319, 391
Carroll,;. L, 200, 328, 379
Carson, D. K., 259, 379
Carstensen, L. L., 144, 299, 379
Carver, C. S., 288, 289, 379, 382
Casadonte, D., 28, 379
Case,;., 159,403
Cash, M., 250, 377
Cashion, ;. L., 12, 379
Castle, H., 156,399
Cattell, R. B., 192, 195, 199, 379, 399
Celso, B. G., 274, 379
Chafe, W., 164, 188, 379
Chapman, A.;., 60, 147, 249, 250, 379, 380
Chattopadhyay, A., 136, 380
Check,;. E, 352, 380
Chen, G., 212, 380
Cheriff, A. D., 319,321,401
Cherkas, L., 254, 380
Chomsky, N., 89, 380
Christenfeld, N., 174, 176, 391
Christie, I. C., 164, 380
Christophel, D. M., 351, 352, 353, 358, 390
Cicirelli, V. G, 264, 412
ClabbyJ. E, 218, 380
Clark, A, 327, 380
Clark, C., 366, 403
Clark, H. H., 99, 380
Clayton, C., 156, 399
Clement, R., 129, 384
Clouse, R. W., 365, 380
Coan,;., 145,304,390
Cody,M.;., 12,379
Cogan, D., 323, 380
Cogan, R., 323, 380
Cohan, C. L., 145, 299, 381
Cohen, S., 291, 381
434
AUTHOR INDEX
CollinsJ. E., 7, 13, 14, 15, 73, 77, 78, 80, 81, 85, 86,
87, 88, 96, 98, 419
Collinson, D. L., 361, 364, 381
Colston, H. L., 84, 381
Comisky, P. W., 351, 352, 353, 378
Connor, M. C., 356, 402
Consalvo, C. M., 362, 366, 381
Conway, M., 138, 381
Cook, K. S, 132, 381
Cook,M, 209, 316, 381
Coolidge, C., 49, 401
Corey, L. A., 259, 384
Corkill, A. R., 162, 164, 318, 319, 391
Cornett, C. E., 350, 381
Corruble, E., 275, 381
Coser, R. L., 120, 361, 381
Coulson, A. S., 77, 381
Coulson, S., 181
Cousins, N., 25, 310, 311,381
Cox, D. S., 315, 414
Craighero, L., 128, 409
Craik, K. H., 219, 220, 381
Crane, J.S., 351,352, 353, 378
Crawford, M., 147, 148, 149, 213, 327, 336, 381
Creusere, M. A., 101, 245, 382
Criqui, M. H., 316, 330, 400
Cropley, A., 269, 388
Csikszentmihalyi, M., 28, 412
CulverJ. L., 289, 382
Cunningham, M. R., 135, 399
Cunningham, W. A., 88, 382
Czech, D. R., 284, 397
D
Dale,;. A., 271, 284, 382, 419
Damasio, A. R, 109, 172, 173, 175, 382, 406
Damasio, H., 172, 173, 175, 406
Damico, S. B., 260, 261, 382
Dance, K. A, 19, 274, 293, 315, 396, 401
Daniel, H.;, 134, 188,382
Danks, P. K., 271, 415
Danzer, A., 271,382
Darwin, C., 3, 155, 165, 174, 382
Daubman, K. A., 102, 393
Davidson, I. F. W. K., 336, 382
Davidson, K., 197, 274, 327, 397
Davidson, R. ;., 160,385
Davidson-Katz, K., 318, 321, 397
104, 147, 156,209,383,
Davies, A. P., 350, 355, 382
Davies, C., 44, 48, 140, 382
Davies, P, 129, 159, 232, 233, 405
Davis, G. A., 101, 382
DavisJ. M., 118,382
Day, H. L, 60, 163, 218, 382, 397
Day, K. D, 354, 417
de Groot, A., 245, 382
de;ong-Meyer, R., 60, 162, 163, 392
de Koning, E, 146, 300, 382
Deal, T. E. D, 365, 382
Deaner, S. L., 273, 382
Decker, W. H., 367, 383
Deckers, L., 50, 69, 84,
398, 410
Deckers, L. H., 398
Deffenbacher, ;. L, 356, 357, 383
Deinzer, R., 318, 383
Deitz, S. R., 356, 357, 383
DeNeve, K. M., 276, 383
Derks, P., 71, 88, 102, 104, 132, 178, 180, 218, 301,
302, 356, 375, 382, 383, 384, 389, 404, 406
Dewitte, S., 218, 384
Dews, S., 120, 245, 246, 247, 382, 384
Di Maio, S., 91, 374
Dickson, K. L., 230, 232, 233, 386
Diener, E., 16, 399
Dienstbier, R. A., 271, 384
Dillon, K. M., 318, 321, 328, 384
Dimitrovsky, L., 344, 409
Dixon, N. E, 19, 28, 105, 282, 384
DobbinJ. P., 81, 293, 321, 322, 400, 401
Dobrowolska, O, 405
Dobrowolska, O., 232
Dolan, R.;., 181,389
Donnerstein, E., 40, 403
D'Onofrio, B. M., 259, 384
Donoghue, E. E., 129, 384
DorisJ., 196, 384
Doris, P., 146, 212, 296, 300, 384
Dorz, S., 288, 384
Dougherty, K. G., 129, 407
DowJ. H., 359, 420
Dowd, E. T., 340, 404
Dozois, D. ;. A., 280, 387
Drubach, D. A., 170, 419
du Pre, A., 337, 384
Dube, L., 138,381
AUTHOR INDEX
435
Duchowny, M. S., 169, 385
Duffey, N. S., 218, 223, 250, 256, 258, 299, 375, 402
Dull, V. T., 346, 398
Dunbar, R. I. M., 188, 385
Duncan, C. P., 103, 137, 385
Duncan, W. J., 360, 361, 369, 385
Dunn, M. L., 98, 104, 398
Dutrizac, G., 300, 302, 400
Dworkin, E. S., 40, 385
Dwyer, T., 363
Dwyer, T. (1991), 385
Eagly, A. H., 134, 385
Eastman, M., 75, 108, 385
Eaves, L.J., 259, 384
Ebener, D.J., 274, 379
Edington,J., 69, 383
EdwardsJ. R., 291,381
EfranJ. S., 40, 385
Ehrlich, S. B., 361, 391
Ekman, R, 62, 156, 159, 160, 161, 171, 385, 387,
410
Elliott, S. M, 357, 378
Ellis, A., 338, 343, 385
Engel, G. L., 310, 385
Epstein, S., 38, 50, 147, 385, 398
Erickson, K. V, 12, 379
Ertel, S. L., 147, 415
Ervin-Tripp, S. M., 123, 147, 149, 385, 397
Esler,M. D, 315, 385
Esses, V. M, 141, 197, 416
Etgen, M., 132,384
Ettmger, R. E, 357, 413
Eysenck, H. J, 63, 74, 192, 194, 197, 198, 201, 222,
385
Fabrizi, M. S., 245, 261, 385
Fagen, R., 109, 385
Falissard, B., 275, 381
Farina, A., 118, 382
Farrelly, E, 338, 385, 386
Fathman, R. E., 244, 408
Fein, O., 84, 97, 98, 99, 389
Feingold, A, 134, 135, 151, 187, 188, 216, 217, 386
FeisalJ. P., 360, 385
Felmlee, D. H., 146, 386
Felten, D. L., 319, 376
Ferguson, M. A., 143, 294, 386
Fernandez-Dols, J. M., 10, 114, 128, 411
Ferrarese, M. J., 263,407
Ferris, D. R., 218, 386
Fierman, E., 196, 384
Fine, G. A., 122, 386
Fischer, K. R., 5, 113, 128, 408
Fish,J. M., 141, 147, 197,392
Fisher, R. L., 224, 257, 386
Fisher, S., 196, 224, 257, 386, 405
Fiske, S. T, 27, 151,389
Fitzgerald, M., 179,399
FlugelJ. C, 27, 386
Fogel, A, 129, 159, 230, 232, 233, 386, 405
Foley, E., 270, 386
Folkman, S., 282, 397
Foot, H. C., 249, 380
Forabosco, G., 66, 92, 109, 169, 200, 386, 410
Ford, C. V, 19, 287, 386
Ford, T. E., 142, 143, 294, 386
Forester,}., 366, 387
Fortson, S. B., 352, 387
Foster, J. A., 344, 387
Foster, P. S., 162, 163, 387
Fox, K, 304, 399
Fraley, B., 133, 387
Francis, L. E., 150, 304, 387
Frank, M. G., 160, 171, 387
Frankl, V. E., 19, 288, 340, 387
Franzini, L. R., 336, 337, 341, 342, 387
Fredrickson, B. L., 16, 19, 72, 186, 315, 387
Freiheit, S. R., 275, 387
Freud, S, 23, 33, 35, 36, 48, 140, 192, 248, 277, 279,
282, 387
Frewen, P. A., 280, 387
Fridlund, A. J., 174,388
Fried, L, 172, 182, 388
Friedman, B. H., 164, 380
Friedman, H. S., 316, 330, 388, 400
Friesen, W. V, 62, 160, 161, 385
Frith, C. D., 175, 377
Frontzak, N. L., 103, 385
Fry, D. P., 167, 388
Fry, P. S., 274, 286, 293, 328, 388
Fry, W. E, 8, 75, 160, 312, 314, 319, 326, 336, 376,
388
Frymier, A. B., 352, 354, 417
436
AUTHOR INDEX
Fiihr,M., 241,249, 388
Fujimori, J., 320,419
Fujisawa, S., 320, 374
Fuller, R. G., 129, 388
Fullerton, C. S., 289, 401
Furman, W., 301,378
Gable, S. L, 282, 307, 409
Gadfield, N. J., 147,380
Gadish, O., 41, 144, 299, 420
Gallivan,;, 148, 388
Galloway, G., 269, 388
GambleJ, 3, 166,388
Ganim, R. M, 102,218,403
Gardner, H, 177, 178, 245, 376, 377, 378, 417,
419
Gardner, J. B., 104,356,384
Garmezy, N, 263, 407
Garner, B. P., 238, 388
Gavanski, I, 59, 202, 388
Gelb, B. D, 103, 388
Gelkopf, M, 272, 275, 336, 342, 343, 388
Gerber, W. S, 69, 389
Gergen, K., 118,403
Gerkens, D, 84, 95, 96, 97, 417
Gerrig, R. J, 99, 380
Gervais, M., 3, 6, 10, 15, 28, 114, 128, 129, 131, 154,
156, 166, 167, 169, 184, 185, 186, 187, 389
Gezici, E. 6, 164, 406
Gibbs, R. W, 84, 98, 99, 245, 389
Gibson, D. E, 360, 361, 370, 389
Gilbert, D. T, 27, 151,389
Gillikin, L. S, 178, 180, 384, 389
Giora, R, 84, 97, 98, 99, 381, 389
Gladfelter, E., 69, 383
Glaser, R, 165, 315, 317, 322, 394, 416
Gleitman, H., 231,242, 406
Godkewitsch, M., 60, 79, 93, 94, 162, 389
Goel, V, 181,389
Goffman, E, 116, 125,389
Golan, G, 409
Golan, G. (1986), 344
Goldsmith, H. H, 254, 255, 389
Goldstein,;, 389, 390, 402, 411
GoldsteinJ. H, 60, 66, 70, 140, 144, 162, 299, 309,
389, 390, 402
Gollob, H. F, 39, 50, 390, 413
Goodenough, F. L, 185, 390
Goodwin, R, 134, 390
Gordon, B, 170, 172, 374
GorhamJ, 351, 352, 353, 358, 390, 394
Gotestam, K. G, 208, 415
Gottman,;. M, 144, 145, 299, 304, 379, 390
Gould, L, 72, 243, 244, 419
Gould, S.;, 188,390
Graesser, A. C, 11, 12, 73, 79, 97, 116, 117, 119, 121,
123, 398, 403
Graeven, D. B, 147, 390
Graf, L. A, 147, 392
Graham, E. E, 89, 390
Grammer, K, 134, 390
Gray, C. D, 129, 400
GrayJ, 20, 38, 122, 147, 211, 212, 213, 265, 277, 279,
290, 300, 401
GrayJ. A, 164,390
Greenberg, R. P, 196, 405
Greenwood, D, 141, 197, 390
Gregory, ;. C, 58, 176,390
Greicius, M. D, 7, 182, 403
GreigJ. Y. T, 31,390
Gressley, D, 147, 148, 213, 327, 382
Grieger, R, 338
Griffiths, K, 141, 197, 403
Grimshaw, M, 212, 280, 301, 396
Groch, A. S, 147, 390
Grodd, W, 10, 170, 171, 172, 173, 418
Gross,;.;, 19,270,390
Groth, G, 134, 394
Grotjahn, M, 34, 339,390
Grugulis, I, 361, 391
Gruner, C. R, 24, 34, 45, 46, 54, 57, 63, 74, 75, 167,
355, 391
Grziwok, R, 196, 391
Gulas, C. S, 136, 137,418
H
HaddadJ, 52, 140, 197,396
Haellstroem, T, 316, 391
Hagadone, K. M, 294, 387
Hagan, C. C, 183, 202, 403
Haig, R. A, 336, 391
Hall, G. S, 174, 391
Hamby, S, 178, 417
HammesJ. A, 196, 391
Hampes, W. P, 274, 299, 391, 416
AUTHOR INDEX
437
Haney, T. L., 327, 418
Hannah, T. E., 294, 328, 395
Happe, E, 178, 391
Hardy, P, 275, 381
Harman, J., 60, 162, 389
Harris, C. R., 174, 175, 176, 391
Harris, M., 247, 407
Harris, M.J., 252, 398, 412
Harris, P. E., 60, 163, 393
Harris, S. D., 289, 379
Harrison, C. M., 162, 164, 318, 319, 391
Harrison, L. K., 162, 164, 318, 319, 391
Hart,;., 170, 172,374
Haselton, M. G., 88, 384
Hatch, M.J., 361,391
Hauck, W. E., 218, 391
Hay,J, 148,391
Hayashi, K., 321,392
Hayashi, T., 321,392
Hazaleus, S. L., 356, 357, 383
Hebb, D. O., 58, 392
Heerey, E. A., 17, 55, 117, 124, 125, 126, 146, 151,
251,394
Hehl, F.-J., 38, 50, 51, 73, 194, 195, 200, 202, 203, 204,
205, 242, 265, 392, 402, 410, 411
Hemmasi, M., 147, 392
Hempelmann, C. E, 91, 374
Hener, T., 325, 418
Henkin, B., 141, 147, 197, 392
Henman, L. D., 19, 287, 304, 392
Heredia, R., 84, 95, 96, 97, 414, 417
Hertenstein, M. J., 8, 10, 16, 114, 186, 298, 412
Hervas, D., 102, 384
Herzog, T. R., 197, 201, 248, 392
Heyman, R. E., 304, 399
HicksonJ., 200, 392
Hieatt, A. C., 325, 399
Higbee, G, 336, 339, 417
Hillson, T. R., 93, 392
Hobbes, T., 8, 22, 44
Hobden, K. L., 141, 142, 392, 405
Hochberg, E, 254, 380
Holland, N. N, 48, 392
Holmen,;., 328, 329, 330, 415
Holmes, D. S., 38, 392
HolmesJ., 362, 363, 365, 392
Holt, K., 284, 379
Hopfield, N., 246, 414
Horibe, E, 67, 241, 413
Horvath, A., 341, 375
House,J. S., 316, 392
Howerton, E., 55, 125, 395
Hrelec, E. S., 131,402
Hricik, D., 104, 383
Hsu, H.-C, 129, 159, 230, 232, 233, 386, 405
Hubbard, R. W., 319, 326, 376
Hubert, W., 60, 162, 163, 392
Hudak, M. A., 284, 419
Hugelshofer, D. S., 281, 405
Hull, R., 84, 95, 96, 97, 417
Hulme, C, 156, 399
Hunt, M., 246, 247, 384
I
laffaldano, M. T., 360, 392
Iciek, L, 317, 411
Idel, H, 318, 383
Isbell, L. M., 141, 197, 390
Isen, A. M., 16, 102, 109, 392
Ishii, H., 321, 392
Islam, A., 233, 405
ItamiJ., 319,326,393
Ito, T. A., 162, 164, 378
Iwanaga, S., 321, 392
Iwase, M., 171, 182, 393
J
;acobs, N. E., 359, 420
;andorf, L., 315,414
;anes, L. M., 127, 358, 393
;anus, B. R., 224, 393
;anus, S. S., 224, 393
Jenkins, S., 69, 383
;ensen, E. N., 208, 415
;ettej. L., 275, 396
}o, B., 154, 183, 374
;ohn, O. P., 193, 222, 393, 401
;ohnson, A. K., 282, 393
Johnson, H. A., 350, 393
;ohnson, K. E., 239, 393
;ohnson, M. M. S., 102, 393
;ones, E. E., 131,393
;onesj. A., 137,393
;onesj. M., 60, 163,393
Joss-Reid,;. M., 328, 377
;udge, T. A, 360, 393
438
AUTHOR INDEX
K
Kalland, S., 132, 384
Kallen, H. M., 48, 283, 393
Kamei, T., 319, 393
Kane, T. R., 17, 116, 117, 118, 119, 121, 122, 393
KanjorskiJ, 141, 197,411
Kant, I., 58
Kantor, M, 275, 394
KaplanJ., 120, 245, 246, 247, 382, 384
Kaplan, R. M., 103, 394
KarafaJ. A., 197,248,392
Karasik, R, 60, 162, 389
Karatinos, J., 170,419
Kasprowicz, D. J., 317, 411
KasrielJ., 254, 418
Kataria, M., 272, 311, 314, 394
Katz, A., 84, 94, 99, 100, 381, 394, 416
Katz, A. N., 394
Katz, B. E, 107, 394
Katz-Zeilig, M, 170,419
Kawai, K, 321,392
Kawarai, T., 320, 374
Kazarian, S. S., 212, 213, 275, 300, 394, 396
Kazmerski, V. A., 84, 99, 100, 394
Keegan, D., 377
Keinan, G., 288, 324, 377, 404
Keith-Spiegel, R, 31, 154, 196, 394, 414
Kelley, D. H, 353, 394
Kelley, H. H., 132,394
Kellogg, R. T., 83, 394
Kelly, W. E., 274, 394
Keltner, D., 8, 10, 16, 17, 55, 114, 117, 124, 125, 126,
146, 151, 161, 186, 251, 290, 298, 377, 394, 412
Kennedy, A. A., 365, 382
Kennedy, S., 165, 394
Kenny, D. T., 71, 96, 394
Kenrick, D. T., 134, 298, 378, 394
Kerkkanen, P., 316,394
Kerr, S. T., 144, 299, 397
Kessler, J. W., 125, 251, 252, 412
Kharazmi, S., 156,418
Kiecolt-Glaser, J., 165, 315, 316, 317, 322, 394, 416
Kiecolt-Glaser, J. K., 394
Killinger, B., 344, 395
Kimata, H., 320, 395
King, L, 16, 399
Kintsch, W., 103, 395
Kipper, S., 158, 395
Kirkpatrick, L. A., 102, 375
Kirsh, G. A, 212, 221, 280, 301, 395, 396
Kizer, P, 69, 383
Klein, A. J., 242, 395
Klein, D. M, 358, 395
Kleineidam, C, 318, 383
Kline, R, 36, 395
Klingman, A., 273, 370, 404
Klions, H. L., 271, 382
Knox, I., 48, 283, 395
Koestler, A., 7, 21, 43, 63, 64, 72, 75, 77, 85, 91, 101,
115, 154,218,395
Kohda, M., 320, 419
Kohler, G., 214, 215, 216, 218, 223, 254, 276, 328,
395,410,411
Kong, Y. H, 327, 418
Koppel, M. A., 218, 395
Korb, L.J., 336, 395
Korotkov, D., 294, 328, 395
Kowalski, R. M., 55, 125, 395
Kozintsev, A. G., 167, 378
Kredich, K. E, 129, 407
Kreitler, S., 272, 336, 342, 343, 388
Kring, A. M., 17, 125, 151, 251, 394
Kronberg, M. M., 129, 407
Krupat, E., 346,411
Kubie, L. S., 347, 395
Kueneman, K., 318, 321, 397
Kuhlman, T. L., 70, 336, 342, 347, 395
Kuiper, N. A., 5, 11, 12, 19, 73, 81, 97, 113, 130, 147,
148, 208, 212, 221, 245, 269, 273, 274, 275, 280,
285, 286, 293, 301, 315, 316, 329, 330, 394, 395,
396, 400, 401
Kulick, W., 49, 401
Kumano, H., 319,393
Kush, J. C., 200, 396
Kushner, M., 360, 396
Kutas, M., 181,381
Kwon, P, 281, 405
La Fave, L., 51, 52, 140, 197, 396
La Gaipa, J. J., 123,396
Labott, S. M., 274, 294, 319, 321, 328, 396
Lacey, L. A., 359, 420
Lamb, C. W, 41, 397
Lambert, N.K., 319, 397
Lambert, R.B., 319, 397
AUTHOR INDEX
439
Lammers, G. J., 163, 164, 406
Lampert, M. D, 147, 149, 219, 220, 381, 397
Landis, C, 197, 397
Landis, K. R., 316, 392
Landy, D., 40, 397
Langevin, R., 60, 163, 218, 382, 397
LaPointe, L. L., 159,403
Larsen, G., 20, 38, 122, 147, 211, 212, 213, 265, 277,
279, 290, 300, 401
Larsen, J. T., 162, 164,378
Larwin, D. A., 201, 392
LauerJ. Q, 144,299,397
Lauer, R. H., 144, 299, 397
Lazarus, R. S., 7, 282, 397
Leacock, S. B., 44, 397
Leak, G. K., 40, 397
Leap, T.L., 361,369, 385
Leber, D. A., 337, 397
LeDouxJ. E., 164,397
Lee,J. W., 319, 326, 376
Lee, K. L., 327, 418
Leekam, S., 246, 419
Lefcourt, H. M., 2, 19, 43, 193, 197, 206, 207, 208,
209, 210, 218, 269, 274, 282, 283, 291, 294, 299,
315,318, 321, 327,397,401
Lefort, B., 243, 397
Lehman, K. M., 284, 397
Lehnert, K. L., 275, 387
Leite, Q, 212, 280, 301, 396
Lemery, K. S., 254, 255, 389
Lemma, A., 336, 398
Lepsinger, R., 367, 419
Lerner, V., 336, 341, 419
Lesser, R. P., 170, 172,374
Levenson, R. W., 16, 19, 144, 299, 315, 379, 387, 390,
398
Leventhal, H., 214, 333, 398
Levi, L., 60, 162, 398
Levine, J, 36, 37, 39, 50, 72, 196, 243, 244, 248, 390,
398, 409, 413, 419
Levinson, S. C., 125, 377
Levinson, W., 346, 398
Lewis, P., 26, 140, 398
Lightner, R. M., 252, 398
Lim, D. X, 38, 51,416
Lim, K, 246, 247, 384
Lindzey, G., 27, 151,389
Lippman, L. G., 98, 104, 398
Lloyd, E. L., 159,398
Lloyd, S. A., 236, 250, 402
Loeb, M., 248, 398
LoehlinJ. C, 255, 398
LoftisJ. M., 174,388
Long, D. L, 11, 12, 73, 97, 116, 117, 119, 121, 123,
398
Longo, L. C, 134,385
LorionJ., 143, 387
LoscoJ., 147,398
Lounsbury, K. R., 233, 375
Lourey, E., 209, 398
Love, A. M., 147, 398
Lowe, D., 319,407
Lowe, G, 156, 209, 399
Luborsky, L. B., 192, 199, 379, 399
Lucchesi, W., 155,407
Ludovici, A. M., 44, 399
Lumden, D. B., 274, 415
Lundahl, B., 69, 383
Lundy, D. E., 135, 399
Lykken, D. T., 255, 415
Lynch, M., 338, 386
Lyons, V, 179,399
LyttleJ., 137,399
Lyubomirsky, S., 16, 399
M
MacDonald, K. A., 172, 182, 388
MacDonald, N. E., 231, 399
MacGregor, A. J., 254, 380
Mackie, D. M., 138,399
MacLean, P. D., 172, 399
Madanes, C., 336, 399
Madden, T.J., 137,399
Maesen, W. A, 52, 197, 396
Magnavita, J. J., 191, 399
Mahoney, P., 356, 357, 416
Mahony, D. L., 325, 399
Maio, G. R., 141, 142, 399, 405
Makhijani, M. G., 134,385
Mancuso, R. A., 16, 186, 387
MandlerJ. M., 85, 399
Manke, B., 255, 256, 258, 399
Mann, B.J., 121,414
Manne, S., 304, 399
Mannell, R. C., 73, 130, 399
Marci, C. D., 163, 341, 342, 400
440
AUTHOR INDEX
Marcus, N. N., 278, 348, 400
Markiewicz, D., 136,400
Marra, M., 362, 363, 365, 392
Marsee, K. M., 129, 407
Marshall, N., 140, 396
Martens, W.H.J, 336, 400
Martin, C. O, 172, 173, 175, 406
Martin, D. M., 361, 400
Martin, G. N., 129, 400
Martin, L. L, 270, 414
Martin, L.R., 316, 330, 400
Martin, R., 284, 397
Martin, R. A., 2, 5, 9, 11, 12, 19, 20, 38, 73, 79, 81, 93,
97, 113, 122, 130, 147, 148, 188, 192, 193, 195, 206,
207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 218, 245, 248,
265, 273, 274, 275, 277, 279, 280, 282, 283, 285,
286, 290, 291, 293, 294, 299, 300, 301, 302, 310,
313, 315, 316, 321, 322, 328, 329, 330, 349, 369,
377, 380, 387, 392, 394, 396, 397, 400, 401, 415,
419
Martin, R. B., 274, 294, 319, 321, 328, 396
Martineau, W. H., 116, 119, 401
Martinez, E, 84, 95, 96, 97, 417
Mascaro, N., 271,417
Masland, J. L., 156, 359, 418, 420
Maslow, A. H., 277, 306, 401
Massam, M., 289, 403
Masselos, G., 350, 401
Masten, A. S., 262, 263, 401, 407
Masumura, S., 319, 393
Matheis, R., 270, 386
Matthews, B.J., 183,417
Maxwell, D., 284, 373
May, R., 282, 401
Mayer, F. S, 129, 407
Mayne, T.J., 164,401
Mazzella, R., 216, 217, 386
McCabe, R. B., 134, 188, 382
McCarrey, M. W., 129, 384
McCarrollJ. E., 289, 401
McCauley, C., 49, 401
McClelland, D. C, 319, 321, 401
McCluskey-Fawcett, K. A., 249, 413
McComas, H. C., 30, 401
McConathaJ. T, 273, 382
McCrae, R. R., 193, 295, 401, 413
McCubbinJ. A., 315, 378
McCue, M., 323, 380
McDougall, W., 49, 401
McGhee, P. E., 3, 34, 60, 66, 162, 178, 200, 203, 218,
223, 230, 234, 236, 237, 239, 240, 243, 244, 245,
248, 250, 256, 257, 258, 259, 260, 265, 273, 299,
312, 326, 370, 375, 379, 389, 401, 402, 411
McGrath, G., 336, 377
McGuire, F. A., 272, 373
McKenzie, M, 55, 125, 395
McKenzie, S. D., 286, 396
McLachlan, A., 209, 398
McMahon, L., 73, 130, 399
McMorris, R. F, 356, 357, 402
Mednick, S. A., 101, 402
MegdellJ. I., 345, 402
Mendez, M. E, 173,402
Menon, V., 7, 154, 182, 183, 202, 374, 403
Mers, R. W., 71, 74, 96, 155, 407
Mertz, E., 102, 393
Mervis, C. B., 239, 393
Messinger, D., 230, 232, 233, 386
Mettee, D., 397
Mettee, D. R., 40, 131,402
Meyer, J.C., 361,402
Meyer, M., 184,402
Michel, D., 178, 378
Middleton, R., 51,403
Milich, R, 252, 398, 412
Miller, G. E, 187, 403
Miller, M., 327, 380
Mills, D. E., 274, 327, 397
Minchoff, B., 318,321,384
Mindess, H, 48, 283, 339, 403
Minsky, M., 86, 403
Mio, J. S., 79, 403
Mitchell, D. C., 95, 412
Mittwoch-Jaffe, T., 319, 403
Mobbs, D., 7, 154, 182, 183, 202, 374, 403
Moeller, M., 60, 163, 392
Molleston, J. L., 147,418
Monarch, N. D., 55, 117, 124, 126, 146, 151, 394
Moody, R. A., 309, 403
Moore, T. E, 141, 197,403
Moran, C., 403
Moran, C. C, 137, 271, 289, 403
Moran, E. K., 163, 341, 342, 400
Morreall, J, 44, 58, 63, 77, 360, 403
Morris, S.J., 147,390
Morse, S., 118,403
AUTHOR INDEX
441
Mowrer, D. E., 159, 403
Muchinsky, P. M., 360, 392
Mueller, C. W., 40, 403
Mulkay, M., 17, 42, 63, 105, 114, 121, 187, 362, 366,
403
Mullooly, J. P., 346, 398
Munoz, R. E, 19, 270, 390
Murdock, M. C., 102, 218, 403
Murdock, S. A., 336, 339, 417
Murgatroyd, S., 222, 404
Murray, H. A, 51, 197,419
Murray, R. P., 316,406
Murstein, B. I., 144, 404
Mylander, M., 312,373
N
Nakabayashi, Y, 320, 374
Nakawatase, T. V., 173, 402
Nance, J. T., 284, 379
NandaJ. P., 350, 376
Napier, B.J., 319, 326,376
Naus, P, 141, 376
NealeJ. M, 315, 414
Nelson, A. J., 219, 220, 381
Nelson, D. A, 357, 413
NelsonJ. E., 103, 137,385
Nelson, P., 319, 407
Nelson-Goens, G. C., 230, 232, 233, 386
Nerhardt, G., 68, 69, 79, 85, 404
Neuhoff, C. C., 270, 404
NeuliepJ. W., 351,404
Nevo, B., 41, 404
Nevo, O, 41, 273, 324, 370, 404
Newman, M. G., 283, 404
Newton, G. R., 340, 404
Newton, T. L., 316,394
NezlekJ. B., 301, 302, 404
Nezu,A. M., 274, 293,404
Nezu, C. M., 274, 293, 404
Nias, D. K., 198, 253, 254, 404
Nicholl, S., 329, 330, 396
Nichols, R. C, 255, 398
Niethammer, T., 156, 404
Nilsen, A. P., 14, 404
Nilsen, D. L. E, 14, 404
Nitschke, W., 319, 404
Njus, D. M., 319, 404
Nobezawa, S., 171, 182, 393
Nobori,M, 319, 326, 393
Noppa, H., 316, 391
Noriega, V, 289, 379
Norrick, N. R., 12, 13, 73, 86, 89, 97, 98, 99, 116, 123,
124, 404, 405
Novara, C., 288, 384
Nowicki, G. P., 102, 393
Nwokah, E. E., 129, 159, 230, 232, 233, 386, 405
Oberg, B.-M., 366, 373
Obrdlik, A, 48, 405
O'Brien, K. E, 134, 188, 382
O'Connell, W. E., 28, 37, 277, 282, 338, 339, 405
Odell, M., 336, 405
Oemig, C, 55, 117, 124, 126, 146, 151, 394
Okada, H, 171, 182, 393
Olinger, L. J., 19, 81, 269, 275, 285, 286, 315, 396,
401
Olson, H. A., 342, 405
Olson, J. M., 113, 127, 141, 142, 358, 377, 392, 393,
399, 405
Olson, M. L., 281,405
Omwake, L., 193, 405
O'Neill, R. M., 196, 405
Oppenheimer, L., 261, 417
Oppliger, P. A., 248, 350, 351, 354, 405
O'Quin, K., 102, 139, 218, 406
Oring, E., 43, 125, 406
Orr, S. P., 163, 341, 342, 400
Ortony, A., 85,411
Osgood, C. E., 93, 406, 413
OstroffJ, 304, 399
Ott, C, 200, 411
Ouchi, Y, 171, 182,393
Overeem, S., 163, 164, 406
Overholser, J. C., 274, 275, 295, 387, 406
Owren, M.J., 10, 114, 128, 129, 130, 136, 156, 157,
160, 167, 187, 375, 406
Pain, H., 107, 376
Palmer, C. T., 119,406
Panksepp, J., 8, 28, 109, 154, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169,
170, 172, 174, 175, 176, 185, 314, 315, 333, 406
Papa, M. J., 89, 390
Papini, D. R., 249, 413
Park, R., 244, 406
442
AUTHOR INDEX
Parks, S. L., 251, 358, 378
Parrott, W. G., 2 3 1,242, 406
ParviziJ., 172, 173, 175,406
Pascoe, G. C., 103, 394
Paskmd, H. A., 163, 406
Patrick-Miller, L., 333, 398
Patterson,;. R., 196, 199,418
Patton, D., 316,406
Patton, G. K., 360, 393
PaulosJ. A., 28, 407
Payne, B., 141, 197, 403
Payr, S, 105, 416
Pell, C, 69, 383
Pellegrini, D. S., 263, 407
Pennebaker, J. W, 317, 328, 331, 333, 377, 417
Perera, S., 319, 407
Peterson, C., 269, 412
Peterson, J. P., 345, 407
Petta, P., 105, 416
Petty, R. E., 137, 138, 407, 418
Pexman, P. M, 100, 247, 407
Phillips, M., 197, 274, 397
PiagetJ., 236, 240, 241,407
Pien, D., 66, 67, 68, 237, 242, 407
Pierce, R. A., 342, 347, 407
Pietrangelo, D. J., 356, 357, 402
Pilon, R., 240, 413
Pinch, T., 366, 403
Pinderhughes, E. E., 250, 407
Plomin, R., 254, 378
Plutchik, R, 109, 407
Poeck, K., 169, 407
Poehlmann, K. M., 162, 164, 378
Pollio, H. R., 71, 74, 96, 155, 233, 245, 261, 345, 375,
385, 407
Ponder, M. R., 50, 68, 84, 418
Porterfield, A. L., 129, 274, 294, 328, 407
Powell, F. C., 212, 223, 265, 274, 416
PowellJ. P., 352,407
PowelsonJ., 178, 378
PowelsonJ. A., 177, 178, 376
Pozo, C., 289, 379
Prasinos, S., 257, 408
Prentice, N. M., 240, 244, 408, 418
Prerost, F.;., 38, 40, 129, 147, 164, 336, 408
Preuschoft, S., 3, 6, 128, 154, 155, 165, 166, 167, 408,
417
Price-Greathouse, ;., 210, 416
Priest, R. F, 144, 367, 408
Prkachin, K. M., 274, 327, 397
Provine, R. R., 3, 5, 10, 73, 97, 113, 128, 129, 130,
131, 134, 147, 156, 157, 158, 167, 174, 175, 176,
184, 186, 408
Proyer, R. T., 348, 411
Puhlik-Doris, P., 20, 38, 122, 147, 211, 212, 213, 265,
277, 279, 290, 300, 401
Purkey, W. W., 260, 261, 382
Quinter, V. E, 134, 188,382
Rackl, L., 311,408
Radcliffe-Brown, A. R., 116, 408
Rader, C., 160, 388
Ramachandran, V. S., 188, 408
Ramos,;., 129, 377
Rapp, A., 44, 45, 408
Raskin, V., 49, 65, 66, 84, 86, 89, 90, 91, 92, 96, 99,
114, 139, 140, 143, 374, 408, 410
Raudenbush, S. W., 296, 378
Ray, C., 222, 404
Raz, T., 325, 418
Redlich, F. C, 36, 37, 196, 398, 409
Reff, R. C., 281, 405
Regan, P. C., 134, 225, 414
Reid,;., 344, 387
Reis, H. T., 282, 298, 301, 303, 307, 376, 378,
409
Reiss, A. L., 7, 154, 182, 183, 202, 374, 403
Rice, E., 132, 381
RichmanJ., 336,409
Rim, Y., 287, 409
Ring, C, 162, 164,318,319,391
Ritchie, G., 63, 64, 72, 84, 85, 105, 106, 107, 108, 376,
409
Rizzolatti, G., 128, 409
Robillard,;, 240, 413
Robinson, D. S., 289, 379
Robinson, D. T., 120, 122, 149, 409
Robinson, G. F, 102, 393
Rockwell, S., 324, 420
Rodden, F. A., 10, 170, 171, 172, 173, 418
Roeckelein, ;. E., 6, 27, 31, 409
Rosen, D. H., 271,417
Rosenblatt, E., 245, 246, 247, 382, 384, 419
AUTHOR INDEX
443
Rosenheim, E, 409
Rosenheim, E., 344
Rosenwald, G. C, 38, 409
Ross, B. At., 250, 413
Ross,;. W. H., 197,397
Ross, S., 304, 399
Roter, D., 398, 411
Roter, D. L., 346, 398
Rothbart, M. K., 64, 66, 67, 68, 84, 85, 237, 242, 407,
409
Rotondo, D. M., 383
Rotton, J., 272, 324, 330, 409
Routh, D. K., 69, 389
Rowe, D. C., 253, 409
RubienJ., 218, 377
Ruch, W., 8, 10, 20, 21, 38, 50, 51, 62, 73, 79, 92, 155,
156, 159, 161, 168, 170, 171, 172, 173, 192, 194,
195, 197, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206,
209, 214, 215, 216, 218, 222, 223, 242, 254, 265,
270, 276, 315, 316, 325, 328, 348, 383, 386, 392,
395, 402, 409, 410, 411, 418, 420
Ruma, C., 164, 408
Rumelhart, D. E., 85,411
Rushton, C., 222, 404
Russ, G. S., 147, 392
Russell, J. A., 10, 114, 128,411
Rust,J., 144, 254, 299, 411, 418
Rutherford, K., 336, 411
Ryan, K. M., 141, 197,411
Sabin, E, 319, 407
Sadalla, E. K., 134, 394
Safer, M. A., 214, 398
Safranek, R., 274, 294, 411
Sala, E, 346, 411
Salais, D., 69, 84, 383
Salameh, W. A., 336, 339, 348, 388, 411
Sanavio, E., 288, 384
Sander, K., 184,411
Sanders, V. M., 317, 411
Sanderson, C. A., 282, 309, 411
Sanville,;. B., 42, 411
Saper, B., 140, 336, 341, 342, 412
Sarmany-Schuller, I., 274, 416
Saroglou, V., 202, 212, 213, 280, 300, 412
SayreJ., 120,289,412
Scambler, D. J., 252, 398, 412
Scariot, C, 212, 213, 280, 300, 412
Schachter, S., 59, 412
Schaefer, C., 270, 386, 404
Schaier, A. H., 264, 412
Schank, R. C., 86, 412
Scheich, H., 184,411
Scheier, M. E, 288, 289, 379
Schill, T., 274, 294, 411
Schmidt, S. R., 103, 104, 356, 412
Schopenhauer, A., 63
Schultz, N. W., 259, 379
Schultz, W., 182, 412
Schwartz, G. E., 160, 377
SchwartzJ. E., 316, 330, 388, 400
Schwartz, T., 84, 98, 99, 389
Schwarzwald, J., 324, 418
Schweitzer, K., 324, 420
Schwerdt, P., 170, 172, 374
Scodel, A., 196, 391
Scott, M. B., 110,413
Sechrest, L., 218, 395
Segrin, C, 298, 412
Seidler, A., 327, 380
Seligman, M. E. P., 28, 269, 412
Shalit, E, 319, 403
Shammi, P., 179, 264, 412
ShapiroJ. P., 125, 251, 252, 412
Sharkey, N. E., 95, 412
Shats, M., 272, 324, 409
Sheehy-Skeffington, A., 129, 388
Shepherd, R., 197, 274, 397
Sher, P. K, 3, 170, 185, 412
Sherman, L. W., 260, 261, 412, 417
Sherman, M., 304, 399
Shiota, M. N., 8, 10, 16, 114, 186, 298, 412
ShmidtJ. L., 328, 379
Shoji, S., 321, 392
Shultz, T. R., 64, 66, 67, 71, 84, 85, 91, 96, 106, 110,
231,232,240,241,242,413
Shurcliff, A, 61, 79, 413
Sica, C., 288, 384
Sigal, M., 272, 275, 388
Silberberg, A. R., 357, 378
Silverman, I. W., 231,399
Simon,;. M., 274, 413
Simons, C.J. R., 249, 413
Simpson,;. A., 5, 413
Singer, D. L., 39, 40, 50, 413
444
AUTHOR INDEX
Sinnott,;. D, 250, 413
Skarpness, L. R., 259, 379
Smeltzer, L. R, 361, 369, 385
Smith, C. E., 51, 197,419
Smith, J. E., 134,413
Smith,}. R., 249, 380
Smith, K. C. P., 75, 374
Smith, P. K., 126, 185, 413, 418
Smith, R., 38, 50, 385
Smith, R. E, 339, 357, 413
Smith, S. M., 138,418
Smith-Lovin, L., 120, 122, 149, 409
Smoski, M. J., 129, 130, 136, 156, 157, 160, 375, 413
SniderJ. G., 93,413
Snieder, H., 254, 380
Sohler, T. P, 37, 196, 409
Solaas, M. H., 259, 384
Somerfield, M. R., 295, 413
Spaulding, R. C., 19, 287, 386
Spector, T. D., 254, 380
Spencer, G., 140, 414
Spencer, H., 33, 58, 77, 414
Sperber, D., 99, 414
Spiegel, D., 196, 414
Spradley, J. P., 121,414
Sprecher, S., 134,225,414
Spurgeon, K. L., 365, 380
Srendi, B., 319, 403
Sroufe, L. A., 230, 237, 414
Staley, R. E., 88, 384
Staudinger, U. M., 28, 72, 374
Stayton, D. J., 249, 373
Stearns, F. R., 165, 414
Stepper, S., 270, 414
Stewart, M., 97, 414
Stiller- Winkler, R., 318, 383
Stillion, J. M., 148,414
Stone, A. A., 283, 315, 404, 414
Strack, E, 270, 414
Strean, H. S., 336, 414
Strickland,;. E, 40, 70, 414
Stringfellow, A., 178,378
Strother, G. B., 195, 414
Struthers, A., 350, 414
Stuss, D. T., 179, 264, 412
Subkoviak, M. ;., 101,382
Suci, G.;., 93, 406
Sullivan, K., 246, 414
Suls, ;., 393
SulsJ. M., 17, 63, 64, 66, 70, 71, 75, 84, 85, 91, 96,
106, 116, 117, 118, 119, 121, 122, 140, 181, 200,
390, 414
SultanJ, 284, 397
Sumners, A. D., 290, 414
Sundar, S. S, 324, 420
Surkis, A. A, 336, 415
Sutton-Smith, B., 248, 415
Svebak, S, 48, 79, 81, 160, 179, 180, 206, 207, 328,
329,330,415
SwainJ. E, 367, 408
Swanson, C, 145, 304, 390
Szabo, A., 7, 271, 415
Taal, W, 164, 406
Talbot, L. A., 274, 415
Tamblyn, D, 350, 415
TanJ, 135,399
Tan, S. A, 319,326,376
Tang, D, 134, 390
Tannen, D, 149, 415
Tannenbaum, P. H, 93, 406
Taylor, D, 209, 316, 381
Taylor, S. B, 209, 399
Tecucianu, F, 344, 409
TedeschiJ. T, 17, 116, 117, 118, 119, 121, 122,
393
Tellegen, A, 255, 415
Tennen, H, 296, 415
Tepper, I, 324, 418
TerrionJ. L, 122, 125,415
Terry, R. L, 147, 415
Teshimovsky-Arditi, M, 324, 404
TeslowJ. L, 350, 354,416
Texhima, H, 319,326,393
Teyber, E, 341, 416
Thein, M. T, 144, 408
Thomas, C. A, 141, 197, 416
ThomasJ. W, 218, 391
Thomas, M. D, 350, 419
Thorelli, I. M, 50, 68, 84, 418
Thoresen, C.;, 360, 393
ThorsonJ. A, 209, 212, 223, 265, 274, 416
Tittler, B. I, 257, 408
Todt, D, 130, 158,395,417
Tollefson, D. L, 195, 199, 379
AUTHOR INDEX
445
Tomlinson-Keasey, C., 316, 330, 388, 400
Tonosaki, K., 320, 374
Torrance, E. P., 101, 416
Totten, M. C, 321, 328,384
Townsend, M. A., 356, 357, 416
Trappl, R., 105, 416
Traylor, G., 361,416
Treadwell, Y., 218, 416
Treffinger, D.J., 101, 376
Trembath, D. L., 134, 413
Trice, A. D., 210, 284, 416
Trick, L., 94, 416
Trost, M. R, 134,394
TuckerJ. S, 316, 330, 388, 400
Tugade, M. M., 16, 186,387
Turkheimer, E. N., 259, 384
Turnbull, C. M., 43, 416
Turner, R. G., 217, 416
U
Uchino, B. N., 315, 317, 322, 416
Uematsu, S, 170, 172, 374
UllianJ. A, 361,416
Ullmann, L. P., 38,51,416
Umberson, D., 316, 392
Urbach, S. L., 356, 402
Ursano, R. J., 289, 401
V
Vaid, J, 84, 95, 96, 97, 154, 187, 416, 417
Vaillant, G. E., 42, 417
Valdimarsdottir, H., 315, 414
Van Dijk, J. G., 163, 164, 406
Van Giffen, K., 351, 353, 417
van Hooff, J. A., 3, 6, 9, 54, 128, 154, 155, 165, 166,
167, 408, 417
Van Thriel, C, 214, 215, 218, 410, 411
van Wormer, K., 290, 417
VanCleave, G., 69, 383
Vanoli, E. G., 337, 397
Vasey, G., 312,417
Velker, B., 325, 420
Ventis, W. L., 336, 339,417
Verguts, T, 218, 384
VettinJ, 130, 159,417
Vilaythong, A. P., 271, 417
Vmton, K. L., 122, 362, 417
von Cramon, D. Y., 184, 402
W
WakshlagJ.J, 354, 417
Waldorf, V. A., 134,413
Walle, A. H., 118,417
Waltz, W, 323, 380
Wanzer, M. B., 352, 354, 417
Wapner, W, 178, 417
WardJ. R., 300, 302, 400, 417
Ware, A. P., 219, 220, 381
Warm, T.R., 251,252, 417
Warners-Kleverlaan, N., 261, 417
Watson, D., 328, 417
Watson, K. K., 183, 417
WeaverJ., 418, 420
Weaver,}. B., 156, 324,359
Webster, D. G., 162, 163, 387
Wegener, D. T, 138, 418
Weinberger, M. G., 136, 137, 399, 418
Weiner, E. S. C., 5, 413
WeintraubJ. K, 288, 379
Weir, K., 20, 38, 122, 147, 211, 212, 213, 265, 277,
279, 290, 300, 401
Weisenberg, M., 324, 325, 418
Weisfeld, G. E., 8, 185, 418
Weiss, R. L., 146, 300, 382
Wentzel, E. R., 143, 387
WestengardJ, 319, 376
Whalen, R. E., 327, 418
Wheeler, K.J., 250, 377
Wheeler, L, 59, 412
White, H., 148, 414
White, S, 272, 284, 326, 418
Whitney, I., 126, 418
WhittJ. K, 240, 244, 418
Wickberg, D., 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 192, 277, 418
Wicker, E W, 50, 68, 84, 140, 197, 218, 418
Wiggins, E. C, 113,377
Wiggins, S. L, 196, 391
Wilcox, K.J., 255, 415
Wild, B., 10, 170, 171, 172, 173, 418
Wilkens, P. C, 131,402
Williams, A. R., 103, 104, 356, 412
Williams, R. B., 327, 418
Williamson,;, 162, 163, 387
Willis, A. C, 140, 197, 418
Wilson, C. L, 172, 182, 388
Wilson, D. S, 3, 6, 10, 15, 28, 114, 128, 129, 131, 154,
156, 166, 167, 169, 184, 185, 186, 187, 389
446
AUTHOR INDEX
Wilson, D. W., 147, 418
Wilson, G. D, 196, 199, 253, 254, 404, 418
Wilson, W, 147, 418
Wimberly, S. R., 289, 382
Wmdmueller, G., 245, 419
Winner, E., 120, 178, 245, 246, 247, 382, 384, 391,
414, 419
Wmzelberg, A., 284, 418
Wittenberg, M. T, 301, 378
Witztum, E., 336, 341, 419
Wolever, M. E., 319, 321, 396
Wolfenstein, M., 236, 248, 419
Wolff, H. A., 51, 197,419
Wolpert, D. M., 175, 377
Wood, V, 248, 398
Woods, K., 49, 401
Worth, L. T, 138, 399
Wright, D. S., 250, 380
Wright, K. M., 289, 401
WunschJ. P., 230, 237, 414
Wyer, R. S, 7, 13, 14, 15, 73, 77, 78, 80, 81, 85, 86, 87,
88, 91, 96, 98, 419
Yalisove, D., 240, 241, 244, 419
Yarnold, J. K., 199,419
Yasui, T, 320, 374
Yehuda, S., 319, 403
Yip,J. A, 301,349, 369, 419
Yokoyama, C., 171, 182, 393
Yong, Y. L., 3, 156, 157, 158, 408
Yoshikawa, E., 171, 182, 393
Yoshino, S., 320, 419
Young, A., 209, 316, 381
Young, R. C, 17, 55, 117, 124, 125, 126, 146, 151,
394
Yovetich, N. A., 284, 419
Yukl, G., 367, 419
251,
Zajdman, A., 117,419
Zeilig, G., 170, 419
Ziegler, V., 350,419
Zigler, E., 72, 243, 244, 250, 407, 419
Zillmann, D., 50, 51, 52, 53, 61, 79, 140, 156, 197, 248,
251, 324, 351, 352, 353, 354, 358, 359, 378, 379,
395, 405, 417, 418, 419, 420
Zinkhan, G. M., 103, 388
Ziv, A., 41, 102, 118, 144, 218, 222, 299, 355,
420
Zvaigzne, M. T., 100, 407
Zwerling, L, 195, 420
Zweyer, K., 325, 420
Zysset, S., 184, 402
The Psychology
ofHumor
An Integrative Approach
ELSEVIER
od A. Martin
Most of us laugh at funny things multiple times during a typical
day. Humor serves multiple purposes and though there is a
sizable and expanding research literature on the subject, the
research is spread through a variety of disciplines. Until now there
has been no systematic integration of that literature into a single
book. The Psychology of Humor reviews the literature, integrating
dispersed findings from across subdisciplines in psychology, as
well as related fields such as anthropology, biology, computer
science, linguistics, and sociology. The book begins by defining
humor, followed by a discussion of theories of humor, and then
analyzes research findings from the various subdisciplines in
psychology. Coverage includes the cognitive processes involved
in humor, as well as the effects of humor on cognition, the
neurobiology of humor, the social functions of humor, individual
differences in personality and humor, the development of humor
understanding and use over the lifespan, the association of
humor with both physical and mental health, and applications of
humor use in psychotherapy, education, and the workplace.
ISBN-13: 17fl-D-lE-37ESbM-b
ISBN-ID: a-12-3725bi4-X
ACADEMIC PRESS
An imprint of Elsevier
books.elsevier.com
9 780123 725646
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11